bpnjensen wrote:

Well, whatever else they've done - they have handed the elections and
thus, the lawmaking machinery, to the wealthiest corporations in
America.

Wealthiest corporations in *America*???

Heard on the media last night (01/25) that this ruling also applies to
FOREIGN corporations.

Has anyone else heard this or can it be verified?

-If- it is indeed true, people on these NGs that support the ruling
are either extremely naive -- or should be in jail (along with the
Supreme Court) for supporting such a treasonous idea.

Sorry, but I don't want some Saudi or Chinese company donating millions
to support a candidate of THEIR choice in an AMERICAN election.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:45:15 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

On 1/26/10 08:15 , wrote:

You mean the tax rate on the wealthy that not one ever went broke
paying?



So that's your goal?

No, the goal is for them to share in the expense of running a society

Commeasurately with the wealth they have.

What is the obligation of the citizen who pays no taxes for the expense of
'running society?'

Stevie Nichts wrote:

We've seen how utterly ineffectual campaign-finance laws have
been -- or haven't you noticed that money somehow manages
to get spent?

So?

Murder is against the law -- and yet people still commit murder. Are you
saying that just because some break the law, we should have no law? I'll
make one of your great leaps and say it looks like you are touting anarchy.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:42:18 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

On 1/26/10 08:13 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:12:19 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

THe taxes they pay are miniscule related to the amount they make.


So what?

They must, therefore, pay more.



Why?

Because "we" say so

"we" make it possible for them to amass wealth

"they" don't fight wars or work

"they" certainly don't go broke by paying a commeasurate share of
their amassed wealth for that privilege.

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in
society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system
that authorizes it and moral code that justifies it." The Law Frederic
Bastiat

On 1/26/10 10:57 , wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:41:50 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

On 1/26/10 08:13 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:11:05 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

The IDEOLOGY of (whatever) party is the issue---CONSERVATIVES fought
EVERY major innovation, policy and law elevating peoples civil rights
and liberties from the inception of this nation thru today.


Again, check your history. Y'all is wrong.

Let's have a good laugh


Your needle is stuck.

But not on a false claim that conservatives weren't responsible for
most of the bad things that happened to America and were opposed to
all the changes that made us great


Again, your needle is stuck.

On 1/26/10 11:09 , wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:42:18 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

On 1/26/10 08:13 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:12:19 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

THe taxes they pay are miniscule related to the amount they make.


So what?

They must, therefore, pay more.



Why?

Because "we" say so




Some logic, there, Bubba.

On 1/26/10 11:09 , wrote:

"they" certainly don't go broke by paying a commeasurate share
of their amassed wealth for that privilege.


They already do. 50% of all Federal Income Taxes are paid by the
top 1% of income
earners.

On 1/26/10 11:10 , wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:45:15 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

On 1/26/10 08:15 , wrote:

You mean the tax rate on the wealthy that not one ever went broke
paying?



So that's your goal?

No, the goal is for them to share in the expense of running a society

Commeasurately with the wealth they have.



They already pay far more than commensurate taxation would assess
by orders of magnitude.

What you propose is not sharing the expense but punitive
confiscation for providing the impetus that drives the economy.

On Jan 26, 1:38*pm, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
bpnjensen wrote:
Well, whatever else they've done - they have handed the elections and
*thus, the lawmaking machinery, to the wealthiest corporations in
America.

Wealthiest corporations in *America*???

Heard on the media last night (01/25) that this ruling also applies to
FOREIGN corporations.

Has anyone else heard this or can it be verified?


Not sure if it would, but a lot of corporations are owned by
foreigners. If you think someone like Rupert Murdoch is an American
just because he became a naturalized citizen, well, think again. He
only did so because legally only US citizens are allowed to own
American TV stations.


-If- it is indeed true, people on these NGs that support the ruling
are either extremely naive -- or should be in jail (along with the
Supreme Court) for supporting such a treasonous idea.

Sorry, but I don't want some Saudi or Chinese company donating millions
to support a candidate of THEIR choice in an AMERICAN election.

Well, it's going to happen, thanks to the right-wing faction of the
Supreme Court. First, right-wingers practically sink the country
financially and now they're just giving it away to any unscrupulous
cabals out there for the taking of it.

On 1/26/10 13:32 , wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 12:59:37 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

On 1/26/10 10:57 , wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:41:50 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

On 1/26/10 08:13 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:11:05 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

The IDEOLOGY of (whatever) party is the issue---CONSERVATIVES fought
EVERY major innovation, policy and law elevating peoples civil rights
and liberties from the inception of this nation thru today.


Again, check your history. Y'all is wrong.

Let's have a good laugh


Your needle is stuck.

But not on a false claim that conservatives weren't responsible for
most of the bad things that happened to America and were opposed to
all the changes that made us great


Again, your needle is stuck.



Lame grade school evasion

Noted.


Ditto.