Daniel McCarthy: Origins of the Corporate State

[Marcus Bryant]

Weeding is fer lusers. Weel muricans downt need tuh weed.

[SouthernFried]

[size="6"]

did you read the garet garrett essay? I'd have thought you'd like it. Felix morley, pulitzer prize winner, hated the new deal, too. Didn't you notice that?

no. Why would i read this guy? I'm here to talk to others that are here, not look up links to someone else. If you want me to read guys you think are so smart, have them come here. Otherwise, i suggest you form your own opinions so we can talk about them, not someone elses.

oh, now you recall citizens united, after having pronounced it forgotten and besides, totally beneath your interest, and now you want to say the op was all about it.

Only, it wasn't...

Obviously, you didn't read the linked material...

no, i don't generally read links. Look to my above reply for the reason.

And i don't "recall" citizens united. I don't know of them, never heard of them until now, and don't really give much a damn about them. Why you keep mentioning them as if i should know all about them is pretty interesting. In one breath your disassociating the above author from them (why would that be btw?), next breath your associating my "lefty statists" comment with them. Evidently they are important to you, also evidently they are lefty statists since you associated my "lefty statist" comment to them. So, while your disassociating the author from them, your trying to associate them with him. Very weird.

I don't know who they are, what they stand for (except for what i've discerned from your comments)...or why they are so important to you.

Can't say it any plainer.

the states used to regulate this. Now, there is a federal remedy.

limiting people in corporations from free speech was wrong. The sc ruling fixed that, on the federal level.

this sc ruling is not mentioned in the op.

it's just a coincidence that right after the sc ruled that corporations are people and can advertise, this moron comes up with the 14th amendment and its "personification of corporations" as the root cause of the "problem."

the sc was never mentioned directly. This article, and the morons assertion that it's the 14th amendments fault for giving corporations "personhood" is completely in response to that judgement. I know it...and you should know it. So don't play stupid...it's not the image you are trying to portray here.

it's not the 14th amendment alone -- i concurred with maryk that the new deal was epochal for the centralization of power -- that is important, but the 14th amendment is not negligible either.

well, first...maryk is my wife. She logged on here a little while back. When i use here computer, it shows her name.

Ok, how much influence the 14th amendment may, or may not have, can probably legitimately be up for discussion. I know it's negligible, but i can see where other's are looking for a scapegoat in this, and the 14th amendment "might" be used. It will be tough, because it really isn't the big issue on why fed power is so big. But, with enough lawyereeez, it might be able to be made to look that way. Especially if your really not looking to limit federal power, but going after corporations. I've seen more absurd behavior.

how postmodern. They weren't always. They're creatures of the states. But now all their remedies are federal, because they're "people".

that's right...corporations are people. I'll make it simple...corporations don't advertise. Corporations are just a sheet of paper. It's the people in corporations who advertise. When you rule that a corporation can't advertise, your not ruling against the sheet of paper...your ruling against the people in the corporation not being able to advertise.

The sc ruled right. The fact that 4 of them dissented...shows you how close the left is to destroying rights in this country.

i doubt the cons utional convention had the (british) east india company in mind when it was drafting the bill of rights

.

I doubt they even thought about the british east india company when they did the bill of rights.

But, i flat out guarantee you...they thought about the people in that company...and every other company.

It's about the people...whether they be in a "corporation"...or not.

[/size]

[EVAY]

WH

my recommendation is to give up trying to discuss anything with SF. It appears to me that there is something seriously wrong with the processor function there. seriously.

I have to say I thought the article was useful, and promised a good discussion. I don't think you can get it back from where he took it, though.
And, if I were you, I wouldn't want to get the MaryK personality back to the fore.

[Wild Cobra]

The OP had nothing to do with Citizens United and everything to do with the federalization of power and the corresponding decline of the power of the states over the last 100 years. You missed the point.

So you make my point that we would be better off if the South won the Civil War.

[Marcus Bryant]

WH

my recommendation is to give up trying to discuss anything with SF. It appears to me that there is something seriously wrong with the processor function there. seriously.

There's no finer an example of what conservatism, not to mention what American politics, has become. He's "here to talk to others that are here, not look up links to someone else."

The irony, of course, is that is a standard tactic of the pragmatist. Of course, that assumes that conservatism today differs any.

[Marcus Bryant]

And who the is Citizens United? And why should I care?

I mean. Damn.

[Marcus Bryant]

Of course, at this point Garet Garrett would probably be regarded as a commie subversive by true American patriots like SF.

After all, reading and writing are commie plots.

[Wild Cobra]

I mean. Damn.

Why? Because you though you could say he was a "mind numbed robot," and he proved you wrong?

[Marcus Bryant]

Detecting irony isn't your strong suit.

[Winehole23]

So you make my point that we would be better off if the South won the Civil War.

Not exactly. The OP said what it said, I said what I said, you said what you said.

The emphasis is similar but the substance is not. Civil war is not ordinary cons utional order, and just because I wish states had more power than they do now doesn't mean I wish the south had won the civil war. The link there is possible, but not necessary.

[Winehole23]

WH

my recommendation is to give up trying to discuss anything with SF. It appears to me that there is something seriously wrong with the processor function there. seriously.

I have to say I thought the article was useful, and promised a good discussion. I don't think you can get it back from where he took it, though.
And, if I were you, I wouldn't want to get the MaryK personality back to the fore.

You never know unless you try.

But you also do know -- with close to 100% certainty -- that if you don't even try to talk the bare condition of familiarity will never be established for any future conversation, and even should one succeed temporarily in maintaining a topical dialogue, the war of insults would seem to be incipient at (pretty much) all times....

I doubt anything's wrong with SF's melon, EVAY. He just got cozy and satisfied in his cocoon of incuriousness, is all.

Though he did remark at much greater length than he usually does , his schtick really isn't conversation so much as smug monologues. In that category, short of fluent mastery, brevity is always preferable IMO. Here, SF's accuracy and topicality have been notably weak.