4 ms·
That's a leading question. Instead, why don't you answer this question: Why did the majority say it decided the way it did? Show that you understand both side
by useragent86 7y ago
That's a leading question. Instead, why don't you answer this question: Why did the majority say it decided the way it did? Show that you understand both sides of the issue and aren't simply another guy on the Internet raging against CU.
- papito 7y agoYes, I do. Corporations are associations of people who have the same right to a voice. Corporations are people, my friend. Because the Constitution starts with "We, the incorporated legal entities", not "We, the people". Except that people in a corporation are there to pay rent and NOT exercise political speech. In fact, the political views in corporation's ownership can and often are the complete opposite of the "associated" persons, or employees. So why would a corporation be able to voice its opinion on behalf of the people in the said corporation? What was the last time you specified your party affiliation during a hiring process? You didn't, because it's illegal in the first place. I know for a fact, that a major investor in the company I work for does not share my political views.
- useragent86 7y ago> Except that people in a corporation are there to pay rent and NOT exercise political speech. If I may use a colloquialism: wat. You seem to have a very narrow view of what qualifies as a corporation. I wish you would address the principled arguments I made regarding liberty instead of simply reasserting, "Corporations aren't people!"
- papito 7y agoYou did not make any argument for breaking the previous status quo. My question stands - what was wrong with it?
- useragent86 7y agoYou've replied to me four times without addressing my original arguments, which are fundamental to the issue, regardless of the status quo. Conversation is attained when both parties listen.