Is Romney a murderer?

[Anonymous]

Sure it's a silly question, but I find it hard to find the logic that says corporations are people entitled to constitutional protection, yet allows someone to kill them off when it's more profitable to do so than to let them live. If you support the Citizens United ruling, can you explain why you don't think Romney should be tried for murder?

[Anonymous]

Ok wackadoodle. Go drink some more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sure it's a silly question, but I find it hard to find the logic that says corporations are people entitled to constitutional protection, yet allows someone to kill them off when it's more profitable to do so than to let them live. If you support the Citizens United ruling, can you explain why you don't think Romney should be tried for murder?

Ha. Love it. Absurd, but funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sure it's a silly question, but I find it hard to find the logic that says corporations are people entitled to constitutional protection, yet allows someone to kill them off when it's more profitable to do so than to let them live. If you support the Citizens United ruling, can you explain why you don't think Romney should be tried for murder?

Since your argument really isn't about Romney and really is rooted in arguing that corporations are not, in fact, persons, I presume you've never once, ever, claimed that corporations don't pay "their fair share" of taxes or compared a corporation's effective tax rate to what a person pays, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure it's a silly question, but I find it hard to find the logic that says corporations are people entitled to constitutional protection, yet allows someone to kill them off when it's more profitable to do so than to let them live. If you support the Citizens United ruling, can you explain why you don't think Romney should be tried for murder?

Ha. Love it. Absurd, but funny.

+1

[Anonymous]

By this logic, George W. Bush killed Arthur Andersen.

[Anonymous]

Corporations are composed of human beings, who have free speech rights. The human beings who have free speech are the ones who decide on a corporation's speech, so a corporation should have free speech too. If you restrict the speech of a corporation you restrict the speech of the people making the decisions of the corporation.

If Romney didn't kill the human beings who comprise or make the decisions for a corporation.

[Anonymous]

By that logic Barack Obama killed 10 million people.

[Anonymous]

Corporations are composed of human beings, who have free speech rights. The human beings who have free speech are the ones who decide on a corporation's speech, so a corporation should have free speech too. If you restrict the speech of a corporation you restrict the speech of the people making the decisions of the corporation.

If Romney didn't kill the human beings who comprise or make the decisions for a corporation.

Yes and corporations should vote in elections.

[Anonymous]

Corporations are composed of human beings, who have free speech rights. The human beings who have free speech are the ones who decide on a corporation's speech, so a corporation should have free speech too. If you restrict the speech of a corporation you restrict the speech of the people making the decisions of the corporation.

If Romney didn't kill the human beings who comprise or make the decisions for a corporation.

Well, the a majority of the stockholders should decide how the corporations spend money on politics. I bet they would want they money spent in a different way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Corporations are composed of human beings, who have free speech rights. The human beings who have free speech are the ones who decide on a corporation's speech, so a corporation should have free speech too. If you restrict the speech of a corporation you restrict the speech of the people making the decisions of the corporation.

If Romney didn't kill the human beings who comprise or make the decisions for a corporation.

Well, the a majority of the stockholders should decide how the corporations spend money on politics. I bet they would want they money spent in a different way.

That's a corporate governance issue, not a governance governance issue.

[Anonymous]

Anymore windmills you'd care to joust with?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Corporations are composed of human beings, who have free speech rights. The human beings who have free speech are the ones who decide on a corporation's speech, so a corporation should have free speech too. If you restrict the speech of a corporation you restrict the speech of the people making the decisions of the corporation.

If Romney didn't kill the human beings who comprise or make the decisions for a corporation.

Well, the a majority of the stockholders should decide how the corporations spend money on politics. I bet they would want they money spent in a different way.

The majority of stockholders hire the CEO and board of directors who make those decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anymore windmills you'd care to joust with?

Five conservative activists (a conservative-anointed word if there ever was one) invented a new interpretation, and even though I'm old, I bet I'll outlast this "windmill". A bridge club consists of people, but I don't see a collective right to first amendment protection there.

OMG, do corporations have second amendment rights also?

BTW, I'm the OP, and to set to rest the minds of anyone who thought I was calling Romney a murderer, the topic is Citizens United, as most of you realized..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since your argument really isn't about Romney and really is rooted in arguing that corporations are not, in fact, persons, I presume you've never once, ever, claimed that corporations don't pay "their fair share" of taxes or compared a corporation's effective tax rate to what a person pays, right?

A corporation (the name means "embodiment", I think) is a legal entity considered to be a person for financial purposes. Since taxes are in the financial sphere, I think it's fair to argue for fairness. But construing that fictional personhood to extend into the area of individual political rights under the Constitution was a power play by those who claim to believe in judicial restraint. It will be the prime example of judicial overreach in the law schools once we get over the present right-wing hysteria.