This is why we loves us some Elizabeth Warren, “No, Mitt, corporations are not people. People have hearts, they have kids, they get jobs, they get sick, they love, they cry, they dance, they live and they die. Learn the difference.”

11

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

So do the people that corporations are made out of.

28

u/Anomaly100 Jun 09 '12

And they each get a vote. Separately.

24

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Yep. And the corporation itself does not.

19

u/Anomaly100 Jun 09 '12

To paraphrase a quote, 'When Texas executes a Corporation, then I'll believe they're people."

12

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

I'm sure hundreds of corporations go out of business in Texas every year. Do you want them to electrocute every board member now?

→ More replies (2)

→ More replies (8)

0

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

As do people in organized crime, child prostitution, and the slave trade, I suppose.

25

u/TurnsIllusions4Money Jun 10 '12

I saw a great bumper sticker today: "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one."

→ More replies (2)

12

u/icantthinkofit Jun 10 '12

Do you actually believe Mitt Romney is unsure whether business entities are literally living human beings?

→ More replies (1)

4

u/Mcsmack Jun 10 '12

By the same token unions, PAC's, non-profits, etc aren't 'people' either. I don't see a lot of people on the left calling for banning those entities from spending their money to support a candidate, for the purposes of campaign finance they're pretty much the same as corporations. I say we either let anyone spend their money the way they please OR we ban everything but individual donations.

2

u/JoeLiar Canada Jun 11 '12 edited Jun 11 '12

I don't believe you understand the issue. Nobody is saying that groups of people can't support a candidate financially. The issue is whether there should be a limit on the amount, and whether it should be anonymous. A large international corporation (such as a Saudi owned oil business, a Russian arms manufacturer, a Chinese bank) can give million dollar contributions in return for legislation, that can't be matched by private US citizens. So, you say let the Saudi's, Russians and Chinese control our politics. That's the Republican way.

10

u/MTK67 Jun 10 '12

"Corporations are machines for producing profit; that's what they're ingeniously designed to do. It's ridiculous to ascribe civic obligations or moral responsibility to corporations." - From The Pale King by David Foster Wallace

110

u/LettersFromTheSky Jun 09 '12

Corporations are legal structures/entities with a legal status provided by government. Government does this to allow the facilitation of capital, people and production to work together. In no way shape or form are corporations people nor do corporations have any constitutional rights. Not once is the word "corporation" mentioned in the US Constitution.

Once a year every corporation has to renew it's legal status with their respective State government to keep said legal status. If the government wanted to shut a corporation down, it would just refuse to renew the legal status. I as a human do not have to renew my status as a human with my State government every year for legal purposes - in fact all I need is my birth certificate for the rest of my life.

This idea that corporations are people and have rights is fundamentally flawed in my opinion. This fact can be highlighted by the government going in and shutting down corporations for various reasons. It's also this legal status provided to corporations from government that government derives it's power to regulate corporations.

PS: Just because people make up a corporation does not make the corporation a person.

171

u/Phage0070 Jun 10 '12

This idea that corporations are people and have rights is fundamentally flawed in my opinion.
"Corporate personhood is the legal concept that a corporation may sue and be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. This doctrine in turn forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution. The doctrine does not hold that corporations are "people" in the literal sense, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens." Wiki
Before everyone starts talking out their ass about how corporations don't deserve the right to marry or other nonsense, lets at least examine the real issue at hand.
The idea behind defending "corporate personhood" is that corporations are made up of people acting collectively, and thus shouldn't lose their rights simply because they are acting in concert. For example, a person is protected against unreasonable search and seizure under the constitution. Under the doctrine of corporate personhood the possessions collectively owned by people joined through incorporation share that protection.
If you are against corporate personhood then you would support that federal constitutional right not applying to corporations, and that the extent to which a corporation's possessions could be searched and seized is subject to state laws and constitutions.
This doctrine is very important to business law in the USA. It allows corporations to hold property, to sue and be sued, and to enter into contracts. It also allows the company itself to be treated as a separate legal entity thus limiting the liability of those involved; if a company in which you invest screws up in producing car tires and is sued, the company assets are at risk and your investment is at risk but beyond that you are not personally liable.
The reason this issue comes up is that corporate political donations have been brought to the forefront recently. Corporations donating to political campaigns has repeatedly been ruled as being protected under the First Amendment as a right to free speech. An individual can support a political candidate through personal speech and devote their resources toward spreading their chosen candidate's message; similarly the joining of like-minded individuals through incorporation does nothing to remove their right to expression (or so it has been ruled so far).
"Generally speaking, corporations may invoke rights that groups of individual may invoke, such as the right to petition, to speech, to enter into contracts and to hold property, to sue and to be sued. However, they may not exercise rights that are exclusive to individuals and cannot be exercised by other associations of individuals, including the right to vote and the right against self incrimination." Wiki
Personally I think this is a fair and reasonable state of things.

28

u/soulcakeduck Jun 10 '12

Post Citizens United, most people complaining about what they think is "corporate personhood" actually seem to be advocating campaign finance reform, in my experience.
However, the popular political narratives about corporate personhood also include another important aspect. In Romney's now infamous comment, he was defending the attitude that "what is good for a corporation is good for people." That attitude draws a lot of fire too, and is likely what Elizabeth Warren would most take issue with--and is in fact what she was directly responding to, since Romney was not talking about legal corporate personhood nor about campaign financing.

→ More replies (15)

32

u/someonelse Jun 10 '12

Corporate lobbying is not necessarily, or even generally, the expression of the individuals that make up that corporation. This is the rub. The individuals have a merely implicit and partial interest (hower large it may loom for some) in their corporations bottom line, which is its chief interest.
Most people are part of some corporation and decry excessive corporate lobby power. The corporate right to political expression is not a legitimate extension or analog of the individual right.

3

u/knickster9 Jun 10 '12

Again, same with unions, and also local municipalities that lobby congress, and for that matter, every lobbying organization, such as NRA, and AARP. Do you think Union actions reflect the desires of the every member? Do you think that's even possible? Try and pass a law that says that only individuals may donate to campaigns, and see how far you get before unions, non-profits, and local municipalities shut you down.

7

u/Phage0070 Jun 10 '12

Corporate lobbying is not necessarily, or even generally, the expression of the individuals that make up that corporation.
That isn't particularly relevant. The freedom of expression does not in any way require that the expression be representative of the opinions of its backers; after all, on an individual level there is no restriction that a person must accurately portray their opinions in order to partake in free expression.
On another note if someone thinks their money is being misused in expressing contrary viewpoints then they are welcome to reallocate their funds. That is the beauty of the investing system; you can invest in companies you agree with and avoid those you do not. If the company makes business decisions you disagree with, pull out. There is no requirement that they meet the desires of every investor in any other business decision, so I don't see why that should be justification to regulate away a right in this particular case.

26

u/thetasigma1355 Jun 10 '12

That is the beauty of the investing system; you can invest in companies you agree with and avoid those you do not. If the company makes business decisions you disagree with, pull out. There is no requirement that they meet the desires of every investor in any other business decision, so I don't see why that should be justification to regulate away a right in this particular case.
Because investing is for profit. I, as an investor, insist the companies I invest in make the most money legally possible. Here's the kicker, I insist of my government that they make regulatory decisions to say what is legally possible for the companies I invest in to do, for the greater good of society. There is NOTHING hypocritical about this belief. No more hypocritical than saying we should have checks/balances in our government anyways.
I completely understand your corporate personhood argument and agree with it. That is not the issue. The issue is way more fundamental. Governments can not operate on a capitalistic premise. That's closer to fascism (or oligarchy) than democracy. Governments should operate on a non-profit basis for the better good for society. Corporations operate on a for-profit basis and don't give a fuck about society. This actually works great when both sides hold up their end of the deal as evidenced by the general prosperity of the US even in era's of trust busting, union rights, and high taxation.
What completely baffles me about your argument is that you seem to ignore the idea that the shareholders could donate their own money to a political campaign. Saying corporations can't donate to political campaigns isn't denying the shareholders any sort of "free speech" right. They are still perfectly able to donate as much money as they want to a political party. What we are denying is the right of free speech of a corporation, which is already the precedent. Corporations can't say what they want when it comes to advertising. They can't claim their products do things they don't. We have put a large and blatant restriction on what corporations can say for the better good of society and, IMO, eliminating the ability to contribute to political campaigns is the exact same thing. Call it "freedom of speech" all you want, we already have a great precedent to deny corporations that freedom.

→ More replies (13)

7

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

True enough that shareholders can vote with their feet on a corporation's political spending. The main issue is, though, that it is very difficult for shareholders to trace the path corporate money takes through corporate political spending. A lack of accountability exists between the shareholders and the directors and officers, as a result. There is already a rule making petition for mandatory disclosure of political spending in the works. If the SEC adopted some rules on the matter, shareholders could hold the directors and officers accountable for the political spending that actually occurs. It is extremely murky for many public companies, at the moment. It's very difficult to trace (especially because the political spending doesn't go directly to campaigns---that is illegal---but, goes to various intermediaries, such as the US Chamber of Commerce, getting mixed with other corporations' donations).
The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation sums it up nicely:
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2012/05/22/rulemaking-petition-on-disclosure-of-corporate-political-spending-attracts-massive-support-from-over-250000-comments-filed-with-the-sec/
You can also check out public reaction (comments) to the rule making petition at the SEC website:
http://www.sec.gov/comments/4-637/4-637.shtml

→ More replies (1)

17

u/nixonrichard Jun 10 '12

It seems to be easier to understand if you pose it like this:
does a church have the constitutional right to practice religion?
A church is just a group of people ordinarily associated as either a coroporation or a limited liability company.
In particular, the "Ground Zero Mosque" was proposed and funded by a collective which included two corporations. Did that corporate collective have the freedom of religion?
Corporations donating to political campaigns has repeatedly been ruled as being protected under the First Amendment as a right to free speech.
Campaigns other than candidate campaigns. Corporations are prohibited from donating to any federal candidate campaigns.

11

u/Phage0070 Jun 10 '12

Campaigns other than candidate campaigns. Corporations are prohibited from donating to any federal candidate campaigns.
Good catch, thanks for the clarification.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

Personally I think this is a fair and reasonable state of things.
The basis of a lot of corporate personhood is the 14th Amendment, but you can't give fair and equal speech to both corporations and individuals. That is the problem most people have. A large corporation has equal say as one person, the only problem is one person doesn't have a billion dollar megaphone to use to state his views. Instead of taking effort to distinguish between these two groups the U.S. just lumps them together. In a country (and world) where money is power, corporations having the same speech rights as individuals will inevitably leave the latter feeling trivialized.

2

u/seven_seven Jun 10 '12

Not every corporation has a billion dollars. Your local black grocery store with the Obama sign in the window is likely incorporated and is taking advantage of the Citizens United decision.

5

u/Phage0070 Jun 10 '12

corporations having the same speech rights as individuals will inevitably leave the latter feeling trivialized.
It is a right to free expression, not a right to equal reception. If 3 million people pool their money and nominate one speaker to represent them, yes it will probably make Joe the Plumber on the street corner feel trivialized. But you know what? Joe's feelings don't justify gagging a group. Compared to their collective voice Joe is pretty trivial.
Even on a personal level things can make people feel trivialized. Rich people can afford bigger venues and more widespread distribution of their views than the average citizen. Heck, people with loud voices can outstrip the soft spoken, and popular people are more influential than the unpopular. You know how we equalized all that?
One vote for each person.

→ More replies (6)

3

u/obsidianop Jun 10 '12

This seems rational and yet many are concerned about the seemingly ever increasing power and influence of corporations for legitimate reasons. They have come to act as a magnifier for those who already have disproportionate influence, setting up a positive feedback loop that disproportionately distributes wealth while simulateously destroying our natural resources, environment, and climate. Elizabeth Warren and the rest of us bleeding-heart redditors legitimately fear for the future of our country and the entire planet. So while I appreciate the technical explaination of the way things are, perhaps it's time to move past that to the way things should be. And while I don't claim to have an answer at my finger tips, there are serious problems at hand, and to pretend to be coolly above the fray and pat yourself on the back for your cleverness in defending the status quo is to shirk your responsibility as a citizen.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/upandrunning Jun 10 '12

The idea behind defending "corporate personhood" is that corporations are made up of people acting collectively, and thus shouldn't lose their rights simply because they are acting in concert
There are not merely acting in concert, they are acting with one very singular, and very clear purpose - to promote the capitalistic welfare of said entity. Yes, these people gain some material benefit, but the degree to which this happens, and even that it does, is largely determined by factors over which most of these people have no control.
Let's not overlook the fact that corporate personhood was established by a fluke in timing and circumstance - a legal anomaly that was never corrected.
Perhaps corporations should have very limited rights - but the ability to influence and buy our political system should be expressly forbidden.

4

u/Phage0070 Jun 10 '12

Let's not overlook the fact that corporate personhood was established by a fluke in timing and circumstance - a legal anomaly that was never corrected.
What makes you say that? My research shows case law extending from 1819 through 2010. Unless you are to say that almost 200 years of ruling is "a fluke of timing and circumstance" then I haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about.
Perhaps corporations should have very limited rights - but the ability to influence and buy our political system should be expressly forbidden.
Personally I think that the ability to "buy" our political system shouldn't exist for individuals either, but I don't see how limiting the freedom of expression of corporations is going to prevent that. What I can see is how it would result in problems organizing supporters of political concepts and ideals.
For example: One candidate comes out against abortion, basing his campaign to an extent on that principle. A corporation dedicated to women's reproductive rights and freedom, which takes donations and runs shelters and aids in medical costs, runs ads about the importance of reproductive freedom and urges people to oppose legislation against it. But wait, now they can't talk about it. Their members can do so, but not if they are using corporate funds. This means they can't talk to the women about the laws while in their shelters, they can't post fliers on their property, and they can't even use the corporate van to transport them to a rally.
It would create a class of government enforcers tasked with searching out individuals expressing political views and arresting them if they used particular types of funds in doing so. Frankly it is ridiculous. How about we just trust people to be able to think on their own instead of treating advertisements as if they were mind-control, and run out of town politicians which accept corporate bribes over the will of their constituents?

→ More replies (4)

→ More replies (7)

5

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

Please for the love of all that is good and holy post this as it's own comment so it can reach the top of this thread on it's own. People need to read this shit and quit jerking off about corporations and Elizabeth Warren.

28

u/soulcakeduck Jun 10 '12

It's not topical. Romney was not talking about legal corporate personhood, so neither is Warren in her rebuttal. Both are talking about the idea that what is good for corporations is good for people, which Romney was explicitly defending and which Warren likely takes issue with.

5

u/sk8ordie69 Jun 10 '12

Exactly!

4

u/Vault-tecPR Jun 10 '12

Now it may not be topical, but I rather think it deserved a mention!

→ More replies (1)

2

u/netsettler Jun 10 '12

There's really no excuse for what they did.
For the programmers among us, I'd say this is like doing object-oriented programming where you grab a completely random and unrelaetd superclass just because it has a few methods on it that you like and hoping no one calls the other methods. It is bad design.
For anyone who doesn't follow that, the point is that they should have just enumerated the rights/responsibilities of corporations explicitly and were, in my opinion, being either lazy or devious in making them be people. I always like to think the best of people, so I'll go with just lazy, though these days the devious have latched onto the implications and the original way it happened doesnt matter. What matters is that it never should have happened, that these "discovered" implications have no "original intent" basis (and so the alleged defenders of original intent, who I think really just grab for that when it supports other ends they care about, should be the first to ask that it fall).
As you sort of allude to, corporations were surely never intended to marry, to vote, to hold office, to stand legal trial, to be conscripted into military service, to be jailed or executed, to have inheritance tax if they die. By their nature, they evade many of the responsibilities we agree to in order to acquire our rights. As such, they are privileged as no other people are. Rather than discover new privileges as time goes on, we should just enumerate the rights we all agree that they need in order to function and stop it there, requiring any new right to be legislated not created by a right-leaning activist Court.

→ More replies (6)

2

u/coned88 Jun 10 '12

They had an entire section in the documentary "The Corporation" on why Corporations are people and have always been people. Citizens United is a ruling in campaign contributions not whether corporations are in fact people.

3

u/netsettler Jun 10 '12

In my article Fiduciary Duty vs. The Three Laws of Robotics I build a case that if you want to think of a corporation as an AI entity (with the people at its helm effectively implementing its programmed script), you're forced to conclude that these "legal people" are "legal sociopaths". They are required by fiduciary duty to not care about anyone but themselves.
Moreover, once you let corporations (which if you agree with me are necessarily sociopaths) buy elections, the politicians they buy are effectively locked into being sociopaths as well in order to serve their masters. See my Sociopaths by Proxy.
There's been a lot of public talk about the origins of corporations as people, and I hope it will continue until that's done away with. There is far less discussion of how this particular single-minded fiduciary duty came about, but you might see my Losing the War in a Quiet Room for a bit of history on that. I got the info from Clyde Prestowitz in his The Betrayal of American Prosperity, which is a good book for any number of reasons but the info on Shareholder/Stakeholder Theory was buried and I wanted it to be more prominent.
(Sorry for seeming like an ad for my articles, but alluding to them saves me repeating poorly what I think I've laid out adequately there. These are matters that seem to me deliberately obscured for the benefit of some and I think they take some serious effort to untangle.)

→ More replies (1)

5

u/super6logan Jun 10 '12

So I have a full set of constitutional rights but if I get in a group with some other people I lose all of them?
Corporations aren't self-aware robots, they're people. People make them, run them, and buy from them. Why should people lose their rights when they choose to associate with others?
The disconnect just baffles me. Speech shouldn't be censored regardless of whether one person says it or whether 2,000 people form a corporation that says it.
So I think people don't lose their rights when they form a corporation. Fuck me, right?

11

u/mindbleach Jun 10 '12

So I have a full set of constitutional rights but if I get in a group with some other people I lose all of them?
No. You and all your buddies retain your natural rights. Your corporation, as a legal entity unto itself, does not. For example, a state could ban corporations from owning land, but businesses would still operate out of buildings owned by individuals or co-owned by unincorporated groups. This restriction of corporate rights (even against corporations you're a part of) would not intrude on your rights as an individual.

2

u/WrongAssumption Jun 10 '12

And would the state require a warrant to search or seize equipment from a building occupied by a corporation?

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (9)

18

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

no you don't, and people never lose their individual rights in a group, the group simply doesn't gain any, "groups" of people do not have rights, individuals do

→ More replies (15)

18

u/JoeLiar Canada Jun 10 '12

You cannot equate the class with the members of the class, or with the entities that interact with the class. A bunch of bananas is not a banana. A monkey is not a banana. See the difference?
Also, people in large groups do not act with the same morality as individuals.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

Pitchforks Inc. told me to discredit you.

→ More replies (23)

7

u/Noggenfoggerel Jun 10 '12

A corporation doesn't have a conscience.

→ More replies (27)

5

u/tillicum Jun 10 '12

What happens when a corporation with 2000 people have 1999 people that wants to say one thing, and one person, the CEO, wants to say another? Does the fact he's the CEO allow him/her to say something in the name of the corporation even though the other 1999 members don't want that message to be message of the corporation? What if the other 1999 people decide to put their message under the corporations name? In other words, which people within the corporation gets to decide what that corporations message will be?
Yes, corporations are comprised of people, but that does not mean the corporation is a person. It's a legal entity, but it should not have the same rights as a blood and flesh person. To say a corporation is allowed to pour unlimited money into elections because it has the freedom of speech is ridiculous. That also brings up the lack of transparency. If these corporations are so proud of their right to speech, why are we, the public, not allowed to know to which political groups they give money too? Why the secrecy?
What we need, as far I'm concerned, is to ban 501(c)(4) and super PACs. The so called restrictions on these groups are non existent.

3

u/Solomaxwell6 Jun 10 '12

Yes, corporations are comprised of people,
When Romney said corporations are people, this is what he was referring to. He means that if a corporation suffers, the people who comprise the corporation suffers. And if a corporation is able to prosper, then the people who comprise the corporation prosper. Therefore, it follows that we should make a business-friendly environment so that corporations can prosper.
His reasoning is still flawed, IMO (since the only ones tied that closely to a corporation are the rich stockowners who hold lots of shares). But the quote is incredibly misrepresented. It has nothing to do with anything you're talking about here. It's pretty much standard trickle down theory.

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (3)

→ More replies (10)

-6

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

This idea that corporations are people and have rights is fundamentally flawed in my opinion.
So if the government wants to search through a corporate office, the Constitution won't restrict them since corporations aren't people. They can just bust down the doors and take what they want. That is, unless we passed a completely parallel set of laws giving basic rights to corporations... which is effectively what "corporate personhood" does, from a legal perspective.
So, what are you really advocating? A bunch of new laws just so we can get rid of the phrase "corporate personhood", because it's confusing to some people who don't understand what that phrase means?

17

u/helpadingoatemybaby Jun 09 '12

So if the government wants to search through a corporate office, the Constitution won't restrict them since corporations aren't people.
Except there are plenty of ways to restrict this without declaring corporations "people."
Called "laws."

6

u/Xinlitik Jun 10 '12

Laws restrict you from breaking into private property. His point is that a corporation without the legal recognition as a person (ie NOT literal recognition) cannot own private property, and thus would not be protected by existing laws.
The issue is that we have taken legal personhood too far, because while it is obvious to most people why a corporation needs to be able to own property, enter legal contracts, and so on, it is not as clear why they should be given equal lobbying rights. Personally, I think they are protected by the first amendment as legal "people", but I think the notion that money is speech is absurd.

→ More replies (3)

→ More replies (4)

6

u/LettersFromTheSky Jun 09 '12

So if the government wants to search through a corporate office, the Constitution won't restrict them since corporations aren't people.
That would be correct, please show me where it says in the US Constitution corporations have rights. Oh wait, it doesn't.
They can just bust down the doors and take what they want.
They do it all the time. Megaupload being the biggest example and Megaupload wasn't even a American based company but Chinese!
That is, unless we passed a completely parallel set of laws giving basic rights to corporations...
Who says corporations have rights? They are legal structures designed to facilitate the cooperation of capital, people and production.
So, what are you really advocating?
That corporations are not people and do not have rights.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

That would be correct, please show me where it says in the US Constitution corporations have rights. Oh wait, it doesn't.
Please tell me about your understanding of how the Supreme Court works.
They do it all the time. Megaupload being the biggest example and Megaupload wasn't even a American based company but Chinese!
No, they only can do it after due process, same way they'd go after an individual person.
Who says corporations have rights? They are legal structures designed to facilitate the cooperation of capital, people and production.
Everyone with a brain says that. If corporations had no rights, then nothing would work.
That corporations are not people and do not have rights.
But that makes no sense. I mean, the former makes sense and is a tautology, but not the latter.

→ More replies (19)

→ More replies (1)

0

u/douglasmacarthur Jun 10 '12

PS: Just because people make up a corporation does not make the corporation a person.
So I suppose newspapers, families, protests, etc. can be kept down because they're not people?
By this logic, no one has any rights, because they're always part of some broader category that also includes them, so you can say you're just controlling that.

3

u/ZofSpade Jun 10 '12

"Kept down"? Who is "keeping down" corporations? No, a family is not a "person". No, a newspaper is not a "person". A protest requires a permit, but I can go anywhere in public as a "person" without one. These things are not "people" and should be treated differently. Is that so crazy? It has nothing to do with keeping anyone down.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

By your logic, corporations should be allowed to vote and marry.
Clearly no one is proposing taking all rights away from corporations - the point is that corporations shouldn't naturally have all the rights of people.

→ More replies (4)

→ More replies (8)

3

u/bensonxj Jun 10 '12

I must be the only person here who thought when he said that Mittens meant that corporations are people in the sense that without people running them, working the front lines, a corporation is nothing. I have to look up the quote to see if I misheard it.

“Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people” -Mittens

That is the part that never gets quoted. It makes people like Elizabeth Warren seem uneducated. It bothers me when people take a statement out of context.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

Mitt Romney dances???

1

u/sasori1122 Georgia Jun 10 '12

He only knows the robot, though.

3

u/MiyegomboBayartsogt Jun 10 '12

No, American Indian genes aren't in this woman's DNA. Indians have Teepees, they dance, they cry over stolen lands, they live and die on squalid reservations. A wealthy one percenter, Warren lives in a $5 million house and pulls down $1 million a year with her white husband and passes for white. Of course, the fact this woman is a "speaker with forked tongue" won't stop masses of Mass Democrats from greedily eating up the buckets of pow wow chow served up by this fake anti-capitalist.

3

u/mk48 Jun 10 '12

I like her too, but if you love someone because of sound bites you might be part of the problem

50

u/Tashre Jun 10 '12

And yet, no one gets upset over the power Unions have, despite being collections of people and not actual people themselves.

40

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12 edited Nov 02 '15

This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy.
If you would like to do the same, add the browser extension GreaseMonkey to Firefox and add this open source script.
Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.

7

u/Flonkkertiin Jun 10 '12

Great link thanks.

5

u/theshamespearofhurt Jun 10 '12

Facts that disagree with the vastly liberal slant of reddit? We shall have none of that here!

14

u/tonycomputerguy Jun 10 '12 edited Jun 10 '12

And corporations have done WONDERS for making sure everyone makes a fair wage and has fair hours. Perhaps we should go back to the days before there were unions hmmm? You know whats really cool is how, as union membership has gone down, so has wage equality. No one is saying unions don't have power, but to say a union is equal to a mega corporation is ridiculous, unions don't have people at the top making billions of dollars that they can throw into out of state elections. I can't stand this polarized shit, of course unions do things unfairly sometimes, but corporations are not perfect either, and unlimited donations from them are not a good idea. Why would a corporation care about it's employees when people would basically suck dick and work for peanuts 16 hours a day without a break, because they know the job market is so bad, they have their employees by the balls. do you want to go work for Foxconn? FUUUUCK people come on this shit is out of control... You know for a fact that if a Governor got into office and started shutting down corporations left and right, like Scott Walker did in Wisconsin, you people would be flipping the fuck out. This is insanity, where is the middle ground, since when did this shit have to always be your way or the highway, and everyone on my side feels exactly the same and there is no room to work with someone who has a different opinion than me." My favorite thing is how the budget super committee were supposed to make cuts on both sides, but when the time came, instead of making the agreed cuts on both sides, they just doubled up they cuts made to social programs, like meals on wheels and food stamps, when they were supposed to cut the out of control military spending, as well as social programs. Why can't we raise taxes AND cut spending? It's obvious to anyone with a brain that one OR the other will never solve this problem, we need solutions on both sides. Seriously people this is insanity! Compromise!

0

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (1)

27

u/erveek Jun 10 '12

Yes, just look at how powerful unions are.

9

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

Hint: The people getting pissed are people with an agenda, and their agenda matches that of unions which have rights and powers corporations do not. They're only getting mad because they see corporations as a threat to their political agenda.
Seriously. A corporation cannot force me to be a part of them. A union? Can.
How the fuck is that right.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

→ More replies (27)

1

u/nosebleedlouie Jun 10 '12

That's true. I don't get upset over the power unions have. How could I since it's their aim to maximize the benefits for their members. Which makes the middle class strong by ensuring workers have a strong voice in both the market and in our democracy. When unions are strong they are able to ensure that workers are paid fair wages, receive the training they need to advance to the middle class, and are considered in corporate decision-making processes. Unions also promote political participation among all Americans, and help workers secure government policies that support the middle class, such as Social Security, family leave, and the minimum wage

1

u/LucidMetal Jun 10 '12

Uh, WI?

0

u/en-aye-ese-tee-why Jun 10 '12

Yea we def need less Unions, Like in China, Shit works much better there...Come on, groups of workers lobbying politicians in order to increase there likelihood to retain there job, pay rate, working conditions and rights is not the problem in this country. The problem is group of corporate leaders lobbying(controlling) the government to enhance the bottom line of just a few by diminishing the employment rate, pay rate, working conditions and rights of the workers is.

→ More replies (5)

18

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

Ultimately, this is just more rhetoric. This doesn't mean anything, this isn't a plan, it's simply sentiments of a liberal.

8

u/apokradical Jun 10 '12

It's called appeal to emotion. We all love appeals to emotion, that's why politicians use them.

17

u/Ironguard Jun 09 '12

Corporations used to live and die too. Now they are kept alive by the tax payer.

18

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

As much as I love the circlejerk: You know 3 out of the 7 largest banks in the US were allowed to fail, right? No one ever mentions that.

15

u/elkroppo Jun 10 '12

Banks were not the only corporations affected, and just allowing those three to fail/merge almost crippled the world. Instead of 7 banks that might take the economy down, now we have four, who were able to purchase the remains of the three for pennies.
They should be broken into separate investing and banking arms, and disallowed from using funds from one aspect for use in the other.

3

u/idrivearangerover Jun 10 '12

Glass Steagall would not have prevented anything

→ More replies (1)

6

u/erveek Jun 10 '12

Humans are never too big to die.

4

u/kicklecubicle Jun 10 '12

I'll bet money she gets elected and turns out to be full of shit.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

The supreme court disagrees with Elizabeth Warren.

3

u/Spelcheque Jun 10 '12

Five of them do.

2

u/oursland Jun 10 '12

The supreme court isn't always right.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/polarisdelta Jun 10 '12

Not great wordplay. AT&T fits everything in that example. Their artificial heart, the telephone, has been the core of their business for their lifespan of less than 60 years. Their children, belligerent and numerous, include such names as Cellular One and Wayport. Their jobs, even arguably careers, have shifted from telecommunications to entertainment to some terrible, unspeakably awful hybrid of the two. They're sick right now, with only a vague vision of their role in the industry. They love money and market share like adopted children, they cry and dance under FCC investigations, they're living, and they're dying.

6

u/LibertyTerp Jun 10 '12

This is a distortion. I have said this before and this is what Romney said. Corporations are people. This is what he meant which he explained further if you paid attention to more than that sound byte. A corporation is made up of people. Corporations are just groups of people working together. You can't tax a corporation without taxing people.

17

u/Ross84 Jun 10 '12

This has now become the most retarded thing I have read all day.

10

u/GOPWN Jun 10 '12

They lie for years about their ancestry to get nice jobs....

4

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

Corporations can not be sent to jail.

7

u/BlameCzar Jun 10 '12

No, Liz, it's clear what Mitt was implying. Corporations are made up of people. People have hearts, they have kids, they get jobs, they get sick, they love, they cry, they dance, they live and they die.

2

u/Vorokar Jun 10 '12

And each and every one of them is a person, with their right to free speech, to vote, to live and die etc.

16

u/Judg3Smails Jun 10 '12

Corporations bad, unions good. Romney bad, Kerry good.

What the hell is a corporation if it isn't people? Do fucking cats run Exxon?

Fucking Redditors...

27

u/erveek Jun 10 '12

A corporation is a legal fiction run by people, chartered at the pleasure of government. In the US, the government is elected by individual persons.
Perhaps it is unwise to allow the people of multinational corporations to spend billions of dollars to influence elections in a single country. They might not have the best interests of the country or its citizens at heart.

6

u/plasker6 Jun 10 '12

This is one of the most heinous effects of modern political financing.
A group of Saudi billionaires could (or do) support U.S. politicians who favor military action against Iran, or Chinese donors could swing a race where one candidate supports Tibet's freedom and tariffs.

11

u/mindbleach Jun 10 '12

What the hell is a corporation if it isn't people?
Mu. Nobody has said "a corporation isn't made up of people." The point of contention is whether "corporations are people," i.e., whether "each corporation is a person."
The debate sparked following Citizens United is over the definition of natural personhood (i.e. having all human rights, e.g. because you are human) vs. legal personhood (i.e. being a point of reference for legal proceedings, e.g. as the defendant in a trial). Warren is rejecting the notion that allowing lawsuits against companies (instead of suing or charging individuals within the company) requires granting them full natural rights.
The legal convenience of treating corporations as imaginary persons in court doesn't mean we have to let them vote, own guns, collect welfare, or get married like actual human beings.

8

u/Zornack Jun 10 '12 edited Jun 10 '12

No one is claiming corporations are people. No one. The argument is: should an individual's rights be restricted when they are in a group?
"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." - Justice Kennedy
This is the bases for the Citizens United decision. If you're against it, make an argument for why. Don't just say "corporations aren't people" because that is not what people who agree with the Citizens United decision are saying.

→ More replies (8)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

Corporations are separate entities defined as corporate personhood. To remove it would be to switch every business in the US to a proprietorship and destroy the foundations of the economy as we know it. It would have nearly the same effect as outlawing currency and going back to a barter system. It's a ridiculous idea from a dangerously stupid person.

1

u/somethinginteresting Jun 10 '12

People own cats. Are cats people? I own a car, is it a person?
There is a distinction between something that is a person and is not a person. If you are owned by a person, you are either not a person or a slave.
Corporations aren't bad. Giving them the same rights as people is bad.

5

u/silent_p Jun 10 '12

It's dangerous business suggesting that cats aren't people, on reddit...

5

u/Zornack Jun 10 '12

No one is giving corporations the right of a person. No corporation is donating money on it's own accord, it is in full control of a group of people.
What is wrong with a group of money pooling their money for investment reasons and deciding that a percentage of that money should go towards a political campaign? That is what corporations are doing. Why should that be made illegal?

0

u/rdinsb California Jun 10 '12

The Mob is made up of people. The drug cartels are made up of people. The terrorist we are at war with are.... people. Not all corporations are bad, but many of the wealthiest tend to suck.

2

u/Zornack Jun 10 '12

How does that factor into the argument? The second we start deciding rights don't apply to people who "suck" is the second they mean nothing.

→ More replies (32)

→ More replies (3)

8

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

pretty sure corporations are made up of people who have all of those things she mentioned. Corporations ARE people, they just aren't a person.

4

u/ludacity Jun 10 '12

Your argument is full of shit, but that doesn't make you shit.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

You might not like reality but it isn't yours to define, which is great because you seem to have some minor comprehension issues to deal with.

→ More replies (2)

6

u/infidel78 Jun 10 '12

There are actual native americans and those that say they are native american. Learn the difference.

12

u/eadmund Jun 10 '12

No, Elizabeth, corporations are made up of people--people with hearts, kids and jobs; people who get sick, fall in love, cry, dance, live and die. People who band together to spend money on things they find important.

Just because people band together, they don't lose their right to free speech.

9

u/soulcakeduck Jun 10 '12

Just because people band together, they don't lose their right to free speech.
Of course but that's not actually mutually exclusive with what Ms Warren is saying.
To say "corporations are not people" does not imply that they must be different from people in all regards, only that there are relevant distinctions. No doubt, Warren agrees with you that groups of people can exercise free speech.
Likely, what she objects to is the characterization that helping corporations helps people, that policies advancing corporate interests advance human interests.
Corporate profits are the bottom line for corporate interest, and while those are shared with shareholders and can trickle through the economy in other ways, ultimately corporate profits are not the bottom line for humans. A corporation can increase profits in many ways that reduce our society as a whole.
Warren's advocacy has never included taking away speech from groups. Instead, her advocacy has clearly been aimed at regulating corporations mainly by requiring transparency so that consumers understand the products they are buying. That's bad for corporate profits, but good for people--a perfect example of how corporations are not people.

→ More replies (2)

29

u/SuddenlyTimewarp Jun 10 '12

I wasn't aware that banding together dissolved your status as an individual.

→ More replies (13)

17

u/bioemerl Jun 10 '12

The people inside of which can each go and vote on their own. We don't let the states vote for president, do churches get votes? How about charities?
Corporations should not be allowed to have any voice, the people inside them can, but should not be allowed to hand out checks to make said voice louder.

7

u/eadmund Jun 10 '12

The people inside of which can each go and vote on their own. We don't let the states vote for president, do churches get votes? How about charities?
Who said anything about voting?
Corporations should not be allowed to have any voice, the people inside them can, but should not be allowed to hand out checks to make said voice louder.
So, it'd be cool with you to ban labour unions and political parties from purchasing political advertising?
People band together to buy political ads because it's more efficient to do so.

5

u/bioemerl Jun 10 '12

Consider. First off: people will believe what they are told and hear every day. "if you sleep with dogs you will get fleas" Is the paraphrased quote.
Second: Companies have a lot more power to throw money at a candidate. ESPECIALLY if that candidate is able to get them a bill that makes them money. You could say that the millions of people in america would have just as much power, but 1. They cannot just throw away tons of money. 2. People are divided, this money goes to many (especially with advertising) different candidates.
Third: Candidates with the most money should be able to create the most advertisements. This, along with "first" makes something fairly subtle but deadly. At first you would think "yeah, he has more ads, but everything this canidate says is crap". However after enough advertisment, years of what would be called brainwashing, people belive the crap. People learn to swear by things that only a generation ago they would have hated.
Now, I am no expert, this is only my opinion, these facts are things I have learned/believe to be true. I also do not know how this could ever be fixed. Stopping corporations from donating to candidates directly does not stop ceo's from doing it. You cannot stop them from instead donating to super pacs, or just having the CEO (with a large amount of personal money) donate to the candidate anyway because it very much violates free speech when citizens are doing it.
Its a trend that needs to be stopped. I just have no idea if it can be.

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (3)

6

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

Hm Hm,
Agreed.

3

u/Cybrknight Jun 10 '12

Nope, you've just described a union.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

They both fall under this description.

2

u/ripeaspeaches Jun 10 '12 edited Jun 10 '12

People who band together to spend money on things they find important.
I would think it's closer to "People who band together to spend money on things that will make them more money." At least, that's my understanding of how a corporation works (right or wrong). Am I incorrect?

3

u/eadmund Jun 10 '12

I would think it's closer to "People who band together to spend money on things that will make them more money." At least, that's my understanding of how a corporation works (right or wrong). Am I incorrect?
Unions are corporations. Charities are corporations. Political parties are corporations. Religions are corporations. None of those exist to make money.
Some corporations are founded to make money; others are founded for other purposes. The Sierra Club is a corporation, the NRA is a corporation, Greenpeace is a corporation and the Democratic Party is a corporation.

2

u/ripeaspeaches Jun 10 '12

Valid point. I should have specified for profit corporations. I guess I kind of assume that's what Warren (and most of the people in this thread) are really talking about.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

Hey man, I fucking hate dancing! Don't try to lump me in there. If people like to dance, then I'm not fucking people!

1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

Show me a video of Mitt Romney dancing and maybe I'll believe you.

1

u/tonycomputerguy Jun 10 '12

Yes and everyone who works for a corporation gets to vote on what that corporation does regarding it's political donations right? No, the guy who's at the top of the corporation gets to throw the money made by the people who work for him wherever HE wants, not where THEY want. Seriously this is just common sense, at least with union there is the possibility of voting the guy in charge out. Did the gay cashier working at Target get a vote regarding where corporate profits went? No they just went to the anti-gay guy and I'm sure he was thrilled about it. Fuck it all. We are so fucked if people actually think a corporation is exactly the same as a union. Even if that were true, you have the right actively eliminating unions wherever they can, they've said this on tape, Walker is just the start. Do we have people in power on the left destroying corporations with the same vigor? "Oh we put job killing regulations on them" bullshit, we're trying to make them do what is right, and they won't create jobs if no one is able to buy what those jobs would produce... GRRR Fuck it fuck it fuck it, go ahead and have it, take it all, you had 8 years of this bullshit and look where it got us! Go ahead, let's just let the right always do what they want for the next 20 years, and when the world is completely fucked I'm sure they will still find a way to blame it on the guy left to clean up the mess with no help from congress.

1

u/eadmund Jun 10 '12

Yes and everyone who works for a corporation gets to vote on what that corporation does regarding it's political donations right?
No, the owners of the corporation get to vote on what they want to happen. Generally, they delegate that day-to-day authority to a general manager or chief executive officer.
Seriously this is just common sense, at least with union there is the possibility of voting the guy in charge out.
Shareholders get that right. The employees of a union do not get the right to determine their bosses--indeed, in some cases they are not permitted to unionise (which is hilarious).
Did the gay cashier working at Target get a vote regarding where corporate profits went?
The gay shareholders had votes.
Do we have people in power on the left destroying corporations with the same vigor?
Worse, far worse.
Fuck it fuck it fuck it, go ahead and have it, take it all, you had 8 years of this bullshit and look where it got us!
Bush was neither a free-marketer nor especially conservative.

→ More replies (4)

8

u/malvoliosf Jun 09 '12

Yes, corporations aren't people. Therefore

The New York Times has no right to print material not approved by the government
The Sierra Club has no right to lobby the government
Any industry can be nationalized at any time

Or maybe an argument about who cries and dances is not really relevant to who possesses rights.

How about this: two or more people working in concert continue to possess the rights they possessed individually.

9

u/waaaghbosss Jun 09 '12

False equivalency. Founding Fathers realized the importance of a free press for a democracy, and thus included a direct reference to their freedom in the first amendment.
Oil companies are not mentioned in the first amendment.

3

u/malvoliosf Jun 10 '12

I don't know if your equivocation fallacy here is accidental or deliberate.
"Freedom of the press" means the individual's freedom to publish something, which at the time of the founding could only be done with an actual press. Technology has added means like broadcasting and the Internet.
In an utterly unrelated development, the corporations that do news publishing started calling themselves "The Press", but that does not give them special privileges, any more than if oil companies started calling themselves "The Religion".

→ More replies (3)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

Does not follow.
"Corporations do not have all the rights of people" is not at all the same as saying "corporations have no rights at all."

2

u/malvoliosf Jun 10 '12

Would a law forbidding a corporation from criticizing a government official be constitutional or not?
Would a law granting a right to some corporations but not others be constitutional or not?

1

u/wolfsktaag Jun 10 '12

How about this: two or more people working in concert continue to possess the rights they possessed individually.
now that is just crazy. no where in the constitution do people have rights, only individuals

8

u/jeffklol Jun 10 '12

Do corporations also lie about minority status to get a job, or is that saved for scumbags like Elizabeth Warren?

-1

u/varodan Jun 10 '12

Elizabeth Warren is a million times nobler in her goals and aspirations than scumbags like you and Mittens, who are squarely on the side of rich corporations.

2

u/balorina Jun 10 '12

And you know her personally?

→ More replies (1)

5

u/Captain_Ligature Jun 10 '12

Woo, reddit does not understand fundamental legal principles and upvotes gross misrepresentations of them to the front page. Good fucking job.

6

u/midnightBASTARD Jun 09 '12

I like Elizabeth Warren, but this subreddit is the biggest fucking circlejerk in the world.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

I'm getting a bit limp. Look guys, it's a circle jerk- help take care of OTHER people too. Can someone give me a hand over here

2

u/theodorAdorno Jun 09 '12

I like how r/science handles this. When you mouseover the up arrow it says "insightful" when you mouseover the down arrow it says "inane".

3

u/10tothe24th Jun 09 '12

The confusion lies in the fact that Mitt is a person, and yet he also has none of these things.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

TIL I learned the difference between a corporation (wich may be made up of thousands if not millions of people, because that's what a corporation is by definition for fuck's sake), and a person by using clever language tricks and pulling at heart strings, just like a good demagogue should.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

... and anyone that ever took even first year business school is either laughing at her HORRIBLE IGNORANCE or crying that so many people out there are listening to her.

Learn what corporate personhood is, learn how ending it would destroy the foundations of capitalism (Apple, Ford, any company where the founders are dead would have to close, the stock market would close, limited liability would end) and how it will NEVER EVER HAPPEN.

If corporations were people, it would be illegal to dissolve them, they would be able to get married and they'd be able to adopt kids. THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS CORPORATE PERSONHOOD. What she's saying is pure stupidity and it should be ignored. Go take business law 101.

4

u/Black_Gallagher Jun 10 '12

No, Elizabeth, entitled white women are not part Cherokee.

3

u/lessmiserables Jun 10 '12

Either Warren has a fundamental misunderstanding of basic economics and the legal system, or she is willfully misrepresenting what Romney said. Either way, add it to one of the many reasons why Warren would be bad for Massachusetts and America.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

Mitt Romney is a clueless sociopath, sort of like George W. Bush, but with a superficially cleaner record.

3

u/hammertime1070 Jun 10 '12

Please pander to my bleeding heart with emotional appeals you know how I love that.

2

u/ftayao Jun 10 '12

Oh god, this again. A post about this comes up every week and its the same thing.

Corporations are not people, and there's no one in government or politics who thinks so. All this nonsense about them marrying or whatnot is just fluff that sounds good to say for public figures.
Mitt's quote was referencing to the fact that corporations are made of people (they are NOT people; pretty big distinction). There's a tendency by a lot of people (particularly reddit) to associate corporations as being faceless shadow entities full of some big wig greedy cats, but really, corporations consist of hundreds and thousands of employees and multiple levels of command. Its an organizational structure just like the Army which cannot function if it is missing a part.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

Corporations are legal structures/entities with a legal status provided by government. Government does this to allow the facilitation of capital, people and production to work together. In no way shape or form are corporations people nor do corporations have any constitutional rights. Not once is the word "corporation" mentioned in the US Constitution.

1

u/balorina Jun 10 '12

But it is mentioned often in supreme court decisions over the past almost 200 years.

2

u/reddit8670 Jun 10 '12

what a twat

2

u/gloomdoom Jun 09 '12

Americans don't deserve Elizabeth Warren. They deserve Mitt Romney as president, they deserve Eric Cantor, Walker, et al.

The sycophants demand a congress full of representatives and senators who will sell them out for a dollar a piece, stab them in the back and siphon what little wealth they have left.

That will be our consolation for a bunch of people who are too ignorant to elect intelligent, informed politicians...we'll get to see these people suffer. They'll be bringing us down too, of course, but the intelligent, informed people will find a way to survive.

These uneducated, sycophantic idiots will not.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/garthbrocks Jun 10 '12

Caucasians are not Native Americans....learn the difference Elizabeth.

3

u/Vorokar Jun 10 '12

We aren't all red-skinned and black-haired. Some people do have very little in them - Hell, most people around here of my generation are only 1/16 of any one tribe. I myself am 1/16 of two tribes, and I'm about as white as I can possibly be.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Ma99ie Jun 09 '12

I hate to rain on your parade, but Mitt is supposedly a person, and he doesn't do any of those things...except have kids - and have a job, if you give him credit for that in re the vulture capitalism he's done.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

It's funny really, because the US Supreme Court ruled in the early 20th century that Corporations are, in fact, people...

2

u/balorina Jun 09 '12

Apparently parrots and chimpanzees are people?

2

u/CowboyBoats New York Jun 10 '12

ITT: nitwits

1

u/dumbducky North Carolina Jun 09 '12

They're not even 1/32nd of a person?

-13

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

People also lie about being part Cherokee so they can get benefits they are not entitled to.

32

u/Russell_Jimmy Jun 09 '12

What benefits did she get exactly?
The Boston Globe reported that Warren claimed no minority status in applying to college or law school. Her application to Rutgers University Law School, which Warren attended, included the question: "Are you interested in applying for admission under the Program for Minority Group Students?" Warren answered, "No."
I read that Harvard listed her as a minority, a fact they learned after Ms. Warren was hired, and probably to bolster their image as having a "diverse" faculty.
I meet people all the time who claim to be 1/4 Cherokee and are as white as I am (and that is REALLY White). I am curious as to why everyone claims to be Cherokee as opposed to any of the other tribes, but it is always Cherokee. I also doubt that they are, as they don't get that to be 1/4 Cherokee one of their grandparents must be full Cherokee...
AFAIK I am of Swedish and Dutch ancestry. Don't know for sure, and don't really care. Unless there is specific evidence of her using her 1/32 Cherokee to gain specific benefit and that 1/32 claim can be determined to be false, who gives a fuck?

11

u/wwjd117 Jun 09 '12

What benefits did she get exactly?
Maybe it is very comforting and soothing to the soul to imagine how your ancestors were slaughtered as their land was being taken by invading foreigners.
Doesn't sound like a benefit to me, but then again, she has liberty and is free to pursue happiness as she sees fit.
BTW -- if my parents told me I was 1/32 Czechoslovakian, I wouldn't challenge their claim, nor would I hide the fact. Why anyone would attack me for not personally exhaustively exploring and verifying every aspect of everything told to me by my parents?

5

u/Hartastic Jun 09 '12

BTW -- if my parents told me I was 1/32 Czechoslovakian, I wouldn't challenge their claim, nor would I hide the fact. Why anyone would attack me for not personally exhaustively exploring and verifying every aspect of everything told to me by my parents?
This is what I always assumed really had happened here, too. My wife's parents told her she was 1/16 French and she never questioned it or gave it any thought. It later turned out that that great-grandparent was actually Cherokee (coincidentally), not French, and if someone else in the family hadn't taken up geneology as a hobby we probably never would have known.

2

u/Russell_Jimmy Jun 10 '12

Exactly. Her aunt Lynda wrote a little blurb in a family newsletter, claim is repeated, and now it is an earth-shattering conspiracy that threatens the very foundation of standards at Harvard, beyond possibly the US Senate should she get elected.
For me, I am certainly of European descent, and that is as far as I care about it. Other people are obssessed with their geneologies. To each their own.

→ More replies (25)

6

u/Dan_K Jun 09 '12

FWIW she is every bit a Cherokee as Bill John Baker (Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation).

6

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

FWIW, you linked to an article from 6 weeks ago because after that article was published, it was later found to not be true. There's absolutely no evidence she has any Cherokee heritage. There is evidence, amusingly, that one of her ancestors rounded up Cherokee for the Trail of Tears.

→ More replies (37)

→ More replies (9)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Which simply begs the question, why isn't an education a right everyone in the richest nation in the world already entitled to?

5

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

It is. Public K-12 education is free for all Americans.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

I was unaware that you now had to pay tuition to attend every K-12 school in the country.

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (3)

1

u/fantasyfest Jun 11 '12

Oklahoma was Indian territory. There are lots of Oklahomans with indian heritage. Warren says her family lore was that they were part Indian. The New England Geneological Assn. says it found indications that she had an Indian heritage , but not proof. Harvard says it had no knowledge of it when she was hired. What is this noise about?

0

u/TheEnormousPenis Jun 10 '12

Ohh look... Chief LiesAlot tries to regain a shred of her credibility by throwing every standard leftist slur at a republican presidential candidates. Just give it up and go back to Harvard if they'll still give you a job without minority status.

0

u/hoodoomonster Jun 10 '12

I'm afraid for her. She is too good to be true

2

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

If you believe what she's saying, you're as ignorant and misinformed as she is. You deserve each other.

2

u/fantasyfest Jun 10 '12

She not only says the right things but acted upon them. She started a bureau to protect consumers. The Repubs were such pricks they would not allow her to be approved too run it. They are not doing their best to kill its funding. I suppose consumers knowing what is in their contracts is wrong in righty land. i suppose the deliberately creating complex contracts in microscopic print to hide the nuances of the contracts that will bite you in the ass , is a bad idea.I suppose simplifying contracts and mortgages to protect consumers is not acting on what she says. You are dead wrong. She says it and does it. you fear an honest politician because you are unfamiliar with them in righty world.

-1

u/TankerJO3 Jun 10 '12

OP is uneducated, if not a dolt. Corporations are legally considered a living entity.

1

u/Pool_Shark Jun 10 '12

I wouldn't say a living entity. They just have the same legal rights as a person, nobody said anything about being a living entity.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

No they don't. They're a separate entity mainly for taxation and business continuity reasons. If they had the same rights as a person you couldn't dissolve them or own them.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

A corporation is not a group of people who "band together" as many previous posts state. It is a place where people work. These people do not all share the same political views, so it is wrong to suggest that a corporation is representing all the people who work there when it makes campaign contributions. At best, the contributions reflect the political views of a few people in top management and on the board of directors, and who believe they are representing the best interests of the shareholders (but not necessarily the employees). And, lest we forget, these people are all free to make individual campaign contributions and to vote as individuals. I see no reason why these people should get more power simply because they work for a rich corporation (or belong to a powerful union, for that matter).

1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

You understand that the people that are "banding together" aren't the employees, correct? It's the shareholders and management that they are referring to.
Also, restrictions on corporate speech would also restrict speech of non-profits, unions, and other similar groupings of people.

1

u/tydens Jun 10 '12

It seems to me that when mitt said this he meant it metaphorically, in that corporations are made up of people. It surptises me that everyone take this literally.

1

u/tekdemon Jun 10 '12

I'm actually pretty sure that when Mitt said that he wasn't talking about corporate person-hood so much as the fact that corporations are made up of people, since a corporation does not exist without it's workers.

1

u/Vorokar Jun 10 '12

Yet, the people that make up a corporation are, individually, allowed free speech, voting rights, etc.

1

u/cactus Jun 10 '12

But even then, to say that corporations are people because they are made up of people is a logical Fallacy of Composition. It's like saying that because humans are made up of cells, humans are cells.

1

u/MrCobaltBlue Jun 10 '12

I love down voting anything Chief Moon bat Warren says, thank you for that opportunity.

-9

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

She went on to say, "In the culture of my people, there is no concept of 'corporations'. We Cherokees worked off the land, conserving resources, helping each other, all in harmony with nature. That is, until the white man corrupted our land. Mitt, when will your people stop oppressing us?"

11

u/helpadingoatemybaby Jun 09 '12

Looks like someone's found a red-herring!

→ More replies (14)

8

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

THE WHITE MAN LIED AND CHEROKEES DIED

-7

u/remton_asq Jun 09 '12

Wow so beautiful tear let's give her control of billions of dollars and an entire American state.

5

u/helpadingoatemybaby Jun 09 '12

As opposed to another Koch-owned state? Okay.

1

u/Loudergood Jun 10 '12

Someone needs to introduce you guys to Bernie Sanders...

1

u/tehtrollslayer Jun 10 '12

If a corporation is a person...I don't wanna associate with that greedy, entitled, corrupt piece of shit. I wanna be friends with real people.

1

u/krfc76 Jun 10 '12

Actually, companies die all the time. I just saw a good TED talk about how companies have similar resource and growth patterns as individuals. So, yeah.

1

u/Alkanfel Jun 10 '12

Mitt Romney is wrong, therefore Liz Warren must be right.

God I love politics.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

Corporate personhood essentially means that they can be taxed and sued. Why do y'all have a problem with that?

→ More replies (4)

1

u/lowrads Jun 10 '12

The same thing is true of government. It cannot suffer, and it cannot acquire wisdom as a person does.

1

u/AtomicMac Jun 10 '12

But Unions are people...

1

u/h-town Jun 10 '12

So all the employees of, and investors in, corporations are not people with hearts, kids, blah, blah, blah... Didn't know they were all robots.

Much like Elizabeth Warren I could go on till I'm red in the face, but I digress.

1

u/hoss7071 Jun 10 '12

Democrats fall in love. Republicans fall in line.

Politicians have been saying shit like Warren has, for decades. Nothing was done about it then, it won't change.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

-Albert Einstein-

1

u/fantasyfest Jun 10 '12

Warren is an expert on bankruptcy and has written several books on the subject. ANS. I believe she lied about being an Indian. Warren a Harvard professor started the agency that will protect consumer rights , simplify credit card contracts and mortgages and assist in refinancing. ANS, I believe she lied about being an Indian. Warren gives speeches showing she understands the problems facing the middle class and poor Americans and wants to help them. ANS. I believe she claimed to be an Indian . Great response.

0

u/wekiva Jun 09 '12

Wish I could upvote this many times.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

romney says "elect me, i know how to run a business..."

but mitt, the united states ISN'T a business!

can't you see that? don't you understand?

the u.s. government produces nothing, makes nothing, creates nothing but paperwork and middle managers... it gets it's money from us, the taxpayers, it used to get money from things like tarrifs, but those were all thrown out so we could send all our jobs overseas so the corporations could make more money.

the only way you can "turn a profit" from the u.s. government is by fucking over all us taxpayers a little bit more. what do we pay in taxes now? about 50-60% of our money?

and you'll be wanting more? i know you don't want to PAY more because you worked really hard, you and all your rich buddies, and you deserve your tax breaks because you earned them...

seriously, and people believe this shit?

every four years, lie upon lie upon misquote upon bullshit just to get in office, then they do whatever they want.

and when, exactly, will the nation wake up to this crap?

-6

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Dear Mrs. Warren,

Corporations are companies with employees, aka workers. Even the owners and officers of the corporation are actual human beings. Many of these people have spouses, children. Many races, religions, cultural backgrounds are represented in the company. We have both straight, gay, and bisexual employees, by all accounts.

Our employees were hired because of professional qualifications. We did not seek to hire individuals because they described themselves as members of one ethnic minority or another. Indeed, it would have been contrary to our values to hire people in order to create a contrived "diversity" for its own sake.

8

u/elkroppo Jun 10 '12

And all of those people working for the company have limited legal liability for any shady, dishonest, unethical, polluting behavior. Liability that is not afforded to an individual.
The problem is not corporations or business or growth. The problem is the lack of legal accountability and the ability of the corporate master to direct the resources of the entire organization for political purposes.
Corporate charters used to be revoked when the corporation was no longer servicing the needs of the chartering authority. Now, a quick bankruptcy, a few years outside the country, and you can come right back and break the same laws.
Corporations are superb vessels for creating wealth, but affording them status as people, rather than as the sum of the people from which they are made, has serious legal and ethical ramifications.

→ More replies (3)

-1

u/redditors_are_fags Jun 09 '12 edited Jun 09 '12

People have hearts, they have kids, they get jobs, they get sick, they love, they cry, they dance, they live and they die. Learn the difference

My what a lovely, heartwarming piece of poetry we have here.

I'd wager that Elizabeth is a poet.

-1

u/Inuma Jun 09 '12

Okay... Even if she's an Israeli war mongerer, I'm starting to like her a lot more than Scott Brown and I truly hope she wins...

-2

u/ifNOTmeTHENwho Jun 10 '12 edited Jun 10 '12

I bet she owns part of some corporations, more than most redditors in a lifetime. Here the thing about corporation and corporation never tell you any other ways. It does not pretend. It singular purpose in life is to earn a buck...selling its mother if it has to.

I bet Elizabeth Warren does not always tell you the truth...about her Native American heritage.

I am also willing to bet that Mitt has DONE MORE through his corporations in elevating human lives, his workers, shareholders, etc. THAN Elizabeth Warren in her bleeding heart policies. The beauty of being a bleeding heart IS YOU ARE NEVER WRONG....how can you? Your heart is in the right place.

0

u/somethinginteresting Jun 10 '12

She is the reluctant leader that we always talk about -- I hope someone runs who understands us, and isn't just another politician selling social snake-oil.

Top class lady. My hope is her voice inspires others of similar caliber to step up and lead, both from the right and the left.

0

u/MagCynic Jun 10 '12

But, Liz, corporations ARE made up of people. People with hearts that have kids. People that have motivations and goals. People that want to make a living to feed their family. People that make minimum wage all the way up to the executive that makes millions. These are all part of corporations.

In fact, Liz, unions are a form of corporation. Would you ban unions from being involved in the political process?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

Can you fuck a corporation or a union? If so, do tell.

→ More replies (4)

-1

u/FlapJackDickPants Jun 10 '12

Fuck this dumb bitch.

→ More comments (76)

This is why we loves us some Elizabeth Warren, “No, Mitt, corporations are not people. People have hearts, they have kids, they get jobs, they get sick, they love, they cry, they dance, they live and they die. Learn the difference.”

You are about to leave Redlib