Con-Pro - Revision history

Stan at 10:52, 14 April 2021

2021-04-14T10:52:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:52, 14 April 2021
Line 56:		Line 56:
	The following is excerpted from the website of <u>[https://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/ Reclaim Democracy]</u>.		The following is excerpted from the website of <u>[https://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/ Reclaim Democracy]</u>.

	One of the most severe blows to citizen authority arose out of the 1886 Supreme Court case of ''Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad''. Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of “corporate personhood,” thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a “natural person.” (This story was detailed in “The Theft of Human Rights,” a chapter in Thom Hartmann’s ''Unequal Protection''.)		<small>One of the most severe blows to citizen authority arose out of the 1886 Supreme Court case of ''Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad''. Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of “corporate personhood,” thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a “natural person.” (This story was detailed in “The Theft of Human Rights,” a chapter in Thom Hartmann’s ''Unequal Protection''.)

	From that point on, the 14th Amendment, enacted to protect rights of freed slaves, was used routinely to grant corporations constitutional “personhood.” Justices have since struck down hundreds of local, state and federal laws enacted to protect people from corporate harm based on this illegitimate premise. Armed with these “rights,” corporations increased control over resources, jobs, commerce, politicians, judges, and the law.		From that point on, the 14th Amendment, enacted to protect rights of freed slaves, was used routinely to grant corporations constitutional “personhood.” Justices have since struck down hundreds of local, state and federal laws enacted to protect people from corporate harm based on this illegitimate premise. Armed with these “rights,” corporations increased control over resources, jobs, commerce, politicians, judges, and the law.</small>
	\|-		\|-
	\|5.		\|5.

Stan at 10:50, 14 April 2021

2021-04-14T10:50:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:50, 14 April 2021
Line 54:		Line 54:
	\|This issue finds the "independent" agreeing with the "conservative."		\|This issue finds the "independent" agreeing with the "conservative."

	The following is excerpted from the website of [https://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/ Reclaim Democracy].		The following is excerpted from the website of <u>[https://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/ Reclaim Democracy]</u>.

	One of the most severe blows to citizen authority arose out of the 1886 Supreme Court case of ''Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad''. Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of “corporate personhood,” thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a “natural person.” (This story was detailed in “The Theft of Human Rights,” a chapter in Thom Hartmann’s ''Unequal Protection''.)		One of the most severe blows to citizen authority arose out of the 1886 Supreme Court case of ''Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad''. Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of “corporate personhood,” thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a “natural person.” (This story was detailed in “The Theft of Human Rights,” a chapter in Thom Hartmann’s ''Unequal Protection''.)

Stan at 10:48, 14 April 2021

2021-04-14T10:48:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:48, 14 April 2021
Line 54:		Line 54:
	\|This issue finds the "independent" agreeing with the "conservative."		\|This issue finds the "independent" agreeing with the "conservative."

	The following is excerpted from the website of ~~[https://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/~~ [https://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/ Reclaim Democracy].]		The following is excerpted from the website of [https://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/ Reclaim Democracy].

	One of the most severe blows to citizen authority arose out of the 1886 Supreme Court case of ''Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad''. Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of “corporate personhood,” thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a “natural person.” (This story was detailed in “The Theft of Human Rights,” a chapter in Thom Hartmann’s ''Unequal Protection''.)		One of the most severe blows to citizen authority arose out of the 1886 Supreme Court case of ''Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad''. Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of “corporate personhood,” thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a “natural person.” (This story was detailed in “The Theft of Human Rights,” a chapter in Thom Hartmann’s ''Unequal Protection''.)

Stan at 10:46, 14 April 2021

2021-04-14T10:46:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:46, 14 April 2021
Line 54:		Line 54:
	\|This issue finds the "independent" agreeing with the "conservative."		\|This issue finds the "independent" agreeing with the "conservative."

	The following is excerpted from the website of [https://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/~~<nowiki>~~ Reclaim Democracy.]~~</nowiki>~~		The following is excerpted from the website of [https://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/ [https://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/ Reclaim Democracy].]

	One of the most severe blows to citizen authority arose out of the 1886 Supreme Court case of ''Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad''. Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of “corporate personhood,” thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a “natural person.” (This story was detailed in “The Theft of Human Rights,” a chapter in Thom Hartmann’s ''Unequal Protection''.)		One of the most severe blows to citizen authority arose out of the 1886 Supreme Court case of ''Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad''. Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of “corporate personhood,” thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a “natural person.” (This story was detailed in “The Theft of Human Rights,” a chapter in Thom Hartmann’s ''Unequal Protection''.)

Stan at 10:45, 14 April 2021

2021-04-14T10:45:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:45, 14 April 2021
Line 52:		Line 52:
	\|The Constitution		\|The Constitution
	\|The Constitution is a work of brilliance. Judges should interpret it as written. If somebody wants to invent new "rights", we have a process for that: constitutional amendment--not judicial activism.		\|The Constitution is a work of brilliance. Judges should interpret it as written. If somebody wants to invent new "rights", we have a process for that: constitutional amendment--not judicial activism.
	\|		\|This issue finds the "independent" agreeing with the "conservative."

			The following is excerpted from the website of [https://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/<nowiki> Reclaim Democracy.]</nowiki>

			One of the most severe blows to citizen authority arose out of the 1886 Supreme Court case of ''Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad''. Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of “corporate personhood,” thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a “natural person.” (This story was detailed in “The Theft of Human Rights,” a chapter in Thom Hartmann’s ''Unequal Protection''.)

			From that point on, the 14th Amendment, enacted to protect rights of freed slaves, was used routinely to grant corporations constitutional “personhood.” Justices have since struck down hundreds of local, state and federal laws enacted to protect people from corporate harm based on this illegitimate premise. Armed with these “rights,” corporations increased control over resources, jobs, commerce, politicians, judges, and the law.
	\|-		\|-
	\|5.		\|5.

Stan at 10:35, 14 April 2021

2021-04-14T10:35:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:35, 14 April 2021
Line 43:		Line 43:
	Perhaps it might help if you try to think what life would be like if you had a big sign attached to your head that says: Since you believe that you are better than me, Degrade Me, Punish Me, Laugh At Me and if you get a chance, Kick me or Kill me, no one will care what you do to me...		Perhaps it might help if you try to think what life would be like if you had a big sign attached to your head that says: Since you believe that you are better than me, Degrade Me, Punish Me, Laugh At Me and if you get a chance, Kick me or Kill me, no one will care what you do to me...

	In places in Europe prior to the World War, Jews were forced to ~~ware~~ a Jewish star to define their low status in the society... African American's can't remove their star.		In places in Europe prior to the World War, Jews were forced to wear a Jewish star to define their low status in the society... African American's can't remove their star.

	Here's a link to an historic speech.		Here's a link to an historic speech.

PaulSank: minor improvement

2020-12-09T14:33:16Z

minor improvement

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:33, 9 December 2020
Line 152:		Line 152:
	\|24.		\|24.
	\|Corporate Personhood		\|Corporate Personhood
	\|Individuals have God-given rights that no government can grant or take away. As the Declaration of Independence says, persons "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights". It's ~~complete~~ nonsense to say that a corporation has such rights, because corporations weren't made by the Creator. Entirely artificial, they didn't even exist until relatively recently.		\|Individuals have God-given rights that no government can grant or take away. As the Declaration of Independence says, persons "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights". It's nonsense to say that a corporation has such rights, because corporations weren't made by the Creator. Entirely artificial, they didn't even exist until relatively recently.
	\|Corporations are not people, and money is not speech, but the Supreme Court made up these ideas in order to give new rights to their big money friends.		\|Corporations are not people, and money is not speech, but the Supreme Court made up these ideas in order to give new rights to their big money friends.
	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDtSSFEZY38		https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDtSSFEZY38

PaulSank: one item added

2020-12-09T14:30:54Z

one item added

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:30, 9 December 2020
Line 52:		Line 52:
	\|The Constitution		\|The Constitution
	\|The Constitution is a work of brilliance. Judges should interpret it as written. If somebody wants to invent new "rights", we have a process for that: constitutional amendment--not judicial activism.		\|The Constitution is a work of brilliance. Judges should interpret it as written. If somebody wants to invent new "rights", we have a process for that: constitutional amendment--not judicial activism.
	\|Agreed! Here's a link to a video that explains what possibly could be the worst case of judicial activism ever put over on our democracy. Corporations are not people, and money is not speech, but the Supreme Court made up these ideas in order to give new rights to their big money friends.		\|
	~~https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDtSSFEZY38~~
	\|-		\|-
	\|5.		\|5.
Line 150:		Line 149:
	\|The HRC's "Corporate Equality Index", for example, had already been showing the great shift of Big Business to the left when the Great Election Theft (attempt?) of 2020 confirmed it. Then, the big corporate media in collusion with other institutional goliaths did their most outrageous cover-up to date. In 2020, minorities voted for Trump more than for any other Republican since 1960, because he brought them less smooth talk and a lot more helpful action. The 2020 red wave in the House was led by women, minorities, veterans. Let's face it: Biden drew the big bucks from Wall Street and the giant banks and then named corporate lobbyists to high positions in his prematurely named Office of the President-Elect. It's ''conservative'' laws that the corporations punish states for, and it's insufficiently ''progressive'' views aligning with companies' uber-liberal "core values" that workers get ''punished'' for expressing. Democrats are the party of the affluent, and the Greedy Corporations problem is in ''your'' lap, my "progressive" friends.		\|The HRC's "Corporate Equality Index", for example, had already been showing the great shift of Big Business to the left when the Great Election Theft (attempt?) of 2020 confirmed it. Then, the big corporate media in collusion with other institutional goliaths did their most outrageous cover-up to date. In 2020, minorities voted for Trump more than for any other Republican since 1960, because he brought them less smooth talk and a lot more helpful action. The 2020 red wave in the House was led by women, minorities, veterans. Let's face it: Biden drew the big bucks from Wall Street and the giant banks and then named corporate lobbyists to high positions in his prematurely named Office of the President-Elect. It's ''conservative'' laws that the corporations punish states for, and it's insufficiently ''progressive'' views aligning with companies' uber-liberal "core values" that workers get ''punished'' for expressing. Democrats are the party of the affluent, and the Greedy Corporations problem is in ''your'' lap, my "progressive" friends.
	\|		\|
			\|-
			\|24.
			\|Corporate Personhood
			\|Individuals have God-given rights that no government can grant or take away. As the Declaration of Independence says, persons "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights". It's complete nonsense to say that a corporation has such rights, because corporations weren't made by the Creator. Entirely artificial, they didn't even exist until relatively recently.
			\|Corporations are not people, and money is not speech, but the Supreme Court made up these ideas in order to give new rights to their big money friends.
			https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDtSSFEZY38
	\|-		\|-
	\|}		\|}

PaulSank: minor improvement

2020-11-22T16:32:24Z

minor improvement

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:32, 22 November 2020
Line 62:		Line 62:
	\|6.		\|6.
	\|LGBT		\|LGBT
	\|First, always be nice to non-activist individuals. What they do at home or among friends, hey, it's a free country! Live And Let Live. Discrimination is bad, but the dominant definition of the century so far has too broad a scope and thus impinges on certain rights of others. Disagreement is not hate. Sodomy and certain other practices are not only morally wrong but also about as unhealthful as smoking. Decriminalizing it was okay, but don't actively encourage it. Sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) therapies should exist and remain available on a level free market to supply whatever demand there is from people who want change enough to work at it and toward it with safe, competent help. Again, ~~our ideal is~~ to attack ideas and public figures, not persons.		\|First, always be nice to non-activist individuals. What they do at home or among friends, hey, it's a free country! Live And Let Live. Discrimination is bad, but the dominant definition of the century so far has too broad a scope and thus impinges on certain rights of others. Disagreement is not hate. Sodomy and certain other practices are not only morally wrong but also about as unhealthful as smoking. Decriminalizing it was okay, but don't actively encourage it. Sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) therapies should exist and remain available on a level free market to supply whatever demand there is from people who want change enough to work at it and toward it with safe, competent help. Again, we mean to attack ideas and public figures, not persons.
	\|		\|
	\|-		\|-

PaulSank: minor improvement

2020-11-22T16:29:06Z

minor improvement

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:29, 22 November 2020
Line 62:		Line 62:
	\|6.		\|6.
	\|LGBT		\|LGBT
	\|First, always be nice to non-activist individuals. What they do at home or among friends, hey, it's a free country! Live And Let Live. Discrimination is bad, but the dominant definition of the century so far has too broad a scope and thus impinges on certain rights of others. Disagreement is not hate. Sodomy and certain other practices are not only morally wrong but also ~~unhealthful. Homosexuality is~~ about as ~~dangerous~~ as smoking. Decriminalizing it was okay, but don't actively encourage it. Sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) therapies should exist and remain available on a level free market to supply whatever demand there is from people who want change enough to work at it and toward it with safe, competent help. Again, our ideal is to attack ideas and public figures, not persons.		\|First, always be nice to non-activist individuals. What they do at home or among friends, hey, it's a free country! Live And Let Live. Discrimination is bad, but the dominant definition of the century so far has too broad a scope and thus impinges on certain rights of others. Disagreement is not hate. Sodomy and certain other practices are not only morally wrong but also about as unhealthful as smoking. Decriminalizing it was okay, but don't actively encourage it. Sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) therapies should exist and remain available on a level free market to supply whatever demand there is from people who want change enough to work at it and toward it with safe, competent help. Again, our ideal is to attack ideas and public figures, not persons.
	\|		\|
	\|-		\|-