Yes. You actually have to principles to begin with, you obviously don't. BTW, Hobby Lobby's principles aren't necessarily mine.
I haven't checked this specifically but I'm pretty certain that, if US law is the same as British law, YOU didn't become a corporation, you arranged for the formation of a corporation or, possibly, bought one off the shelf but you were still you and the corporation was still the corporation. If you and the corporation were the same thing then you could simply take the corporations money because, by definition, it's your money. Well, last time I looked, you can't... it's a criminal offence, (called 'conversion', IIRC... not that I've ever done it, obviously ). TBH this whole area of corporate personhood as it is in the US, together with it's ramifications, ('citizens united', this new lunacy and whatever the hell comes next), has made the USA an international laughing stock.
You do realise you've quoted selectively I assume? Ask most people outside the USA about the matter and see what response you get to corporations being people who now, apparently, even have religious beliefs that have to be taken into account. I mean, what's going to happen next? Is Microsoft going to run off with it's secretary? Is Google going to go on holiday with HSBC and have a row about the gas mileage it gets from it's MPV? DO you think any OTHER countries allows corporations to buy election advertising like the US does?
No, I haven't. You made an assertion. There must be some information out there, to back it up. I simply requested a link. So, you've personally conducted a survey on this? Or, read one? It's an actual topic of conversation? Well, technically, I think the US does not generally allow corporations to do this. PACs are another story. But, if you have any actual information on the topic, feel free to post it here. indias-2014-election-cost-5-billion-second-only-price-tag-2012-us-presidential-election-1570668 "Campaign spending by the BJP has already come under fire from Congress, who accuse Modi of using “black money” in his massive advertising and publicity blitz." ... "Modi has frequently alleged the Congress of using black money ..."
Your post... What I actually said, with the bits you missed out highlighted... But you want some links? Well, you could just google 'American Corporate personhood', 'Hobby Lobby' and 'Citizens United' and click the 'news' link on google on the results but, as you can't be bothered, (or are afraid to see the results), as you're too busy, I've done it for you http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/hobby-lobby-supreme-court-obamacare http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/25/how-public-dissent-in-par_n_5029738.html http://www.thenation.com/blog/17919...fdr-weve-been-fighting-get-money-out-politics http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/03/24/print-coverage-of-supreme-court-contraception-c/198579 http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...y-lobby-supreme-court-beyond-religious-libety http://www.huffingtonpost.com/douglas-kmiec/corporations-are-not-citizens-united_b_5047987.html http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/mar/24/hobby-lobby-sureme-court-obamacare-contraception http://www.salon.com/2014/03/25/fox..._lobby_case_is_about_euthanasia_and_abortion/ http://www.salon.com/2014/03/18/sca...cotus_case_may_be_worse_than_citizens_united/ and my favourite... http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...ens-united-and-the-revenge-of-the-sore-losers Like that guy on 'The Daily Show', says... You're welcome
mother jones the nation media matters huffington post salon nothing but pure news reporting there. not one tiny bit of bias.
There's also the guardian and there were links to The Times but that requires payment so I didn't give them. You think other quality newspapers will give a different slant? Maybe you'd like to give to us a 'fair and balanced' view from Faux News? I'm sure that will be more measured. HEY! If you can find the opposite view from a decent news source, knock yourself out.
You really shouldn't be this thick. Given your quote, of any length, I asked for a link to support your assertion. Something foreign, obviously, perhaps supported by a survey or some documentation, which you have not provided. The only foreign mentions I saw in your linked articles were Aristotle, the Paris Commune & the Nazis. So, you wasted my time. Try again, or don't, as you see fit. Just don't get all supercilious.
Well, strictly speaking, people abroad CAN read those stories and many do, particularly huffpo and stuff like salon, the nation, motherjones, etc. etc... that's kinda how the internet works, y'know... Also, the grauniad I linked to is the same as the printed newspaper over here and is 'branded' as grauniad.com US version... it's the same story by the same journalist. In that sense it's much the same for you as the other sites I mentioned above is for us, just in reverse. As stated, the times is pay only so can't practically give links to that but, trust me, it's pretty much the same as all the rest... http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...supreme-court-threaten-democracy-9233751.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ourt-voids-overall-campaign-donor-limits.html http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/02/supreme-court-mccutcheon-decision-what-now http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap...side-groups-overshadow-parties-key-races.html http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/08/supreme-court-fight-for-voting-rights http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/06/money-bought-elections-us-donation-rules As you might know, the daily 'hate-mail' is a conservative paper... and THEN some. I don't speak any foreign languages but I wouldn't mind guessing, (based on discussions I've had with people abroad), that they're all in a similar vein as well. As I said, if you can find a foreign, moderate, (or even slightly right of centre like the hate-mail or torygraph), publication with a view in FAVOUR of these things, I'd be interested in seeing it as everything I'VE seen is against them and finds them pretty much laughable.
two words: George Soros. does his name appear anywhere in the articles? is the focus on anything but conservative rich guys?
The argument holds regardless of who's involved, obviously. In any case my point is that the view outside the US is almost universally hostile to the proposition that 'corporations are people' in the way the argument is developing in America.
It's considered pretty stupid and hostile in most places in the US as well. Unfortunately one of the few places it is not is is the SC building. And 1.75 sides of the rotunda down the street (but at least they've been paid for years to think this way). It should be hostile everywhere, it's a disgusting concept.
Four words ...is not a corporation. Stilton, you're a Christian, right? So am I. You don't think it's freakin' weird that a corporation is claiming religious beliefs?????
Er.... what? Anyway, 'on my TV' and 'in my newspapers' would be more accurate. It's been discussed on various shows and articles over the years and pretty much EVERYONE find it incomprehensible. Let's be honest... it would have been incomprehensible in the USA 30-40 years ago.
That's what's so odd. If you talk to people in the US, on these boards and elsewhere, THEY find some of this stuff strange.
yes and no. the yes part is a function of the clear fact that a corporation per se is not a person with individual beliefs as has been already discussed. the no part is that HL is a privately owned enterprise of specific individuals who formed the corporation with a mission. they run their business differently from most publicly traded corporations. whether this gives them a pass, i don't know. that's above my paygrade. but i think they deserve a fair look at whether their status as a private enterprise makes them distinct from publicly traded ones.