Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Cartoon from Liberal Opinion Week

34 views
Skip to first unread message

Barry Gold

unread,
Jan 25, 2016, 1:13:55 PM1/25/16
to
Dated January 13:

Left frame: The head of a donkey. Word balloon:
Hillary Clinton certainly has her flaws, but luckily we have a team
of people working hard to make her look good.

Right frame: Expanded view, showing the donkey standing at a lectern.
"Allow me to introduce them"

There are 5 men, all wearing suits except one in a labcoat. They are
labeled Trump, Cruz, Christie, Carson (labcoat), Pau (chopped off).

MajorOz

unread,
Jan 25, 2016, 2:50:57 PM1/25/16
to
No doubt it works well for their readers.

For the electorate at large, however.....

...hmmmm....

oz, not a Trump guy, but starting to lean that way....

Barry Gold

unread,
Jan 25, 2016, 3:09:25 PM1/25/16
to
This could turn into a real "lesser of two evils" election. I don't like
Hillary Clinton one bit, but if I have to choose between her and Trump,
there's no question. Trump is on my "visit the Australian Consulate"
list, and Clinton isn't.

Fred Brown

unread,
Jan 25, 2016, 4:48:24 PM1/25/16
to

"MajorOz" <ozm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e480167e-5b38-445c...@googlegroups.com...
What the heck, Trump can't be any worse than any of the other choices.
Besides, think of the liberal exploding heads when Trump wins the election
and starts issuing executive orders countermanding Obama's executive orders.
[ Judicial Watch filed a law suit in federal court last week challenging O's
"executive actions" on gun control. O ordered the ATF to promulgate
regulations to require single private sellers to have FFL to sell a firearm.
The background check law exempts private sellers and prohibits anyone
other than a FFL holder from requesting background checks.]

MajorOz

unread,
Jan 25, 2016, 7:16:38 PM1/25/16
to
I have unshakable faith (me?...faith?) in the checks and balances construct, even in the face of the current dictator's EO's (and, folks, don't waste time citing numbers....it is the KIND -- designed to circumvent democracy -- that counts).

My evolving support for T isn't based only on programs, but on the gleeful enjoyment of watching the shitting, screaming, gnashing of teeth among the literati.

That, alone, is worth a vote for him.

The most obvious and revealing characteristic of liberalism (today's, not the real stuff) is condescension. Watching it collapse, melt, and wash out to sea would sustain me through 4 or 8 years.

And....T is very much like Ike, in his approach. Hire the best brains extant, outline basic goals, get da fukkk out of the way, and let it happen.


der Hill is smarmy, entitled, phony, and has no morals of any (not just mine) kind. Her only -- ONLY -- reason for breathing is the acquisition of power.


...and, of course, there are SCOTUS appointments....

Barry Gold

unread,
Jan 25, 2016, 8:04:21 PM1/25/16
to
On 1/25/2016 4:16 PM, MajorOz wrote:
> And....T is very much like Ike, in his approach. Hire the best brains extant, outline basic goals, get da fukkk out of the way, and let it happen.
>
>
> der Hill is smarmy, entitled, phony, and has no morals of any (not just mine) kind. Her only -- ONLY -- reason for breathing is the acquisition of power.
>
>
> ...and, of course, there are SCOTUS appointments....

The SCOTUS appointments are one reason for favoring Sanders. I think his
economic plan is dead wrong, but I'm in 100% agreement with him on Civil
Liberties and about 90% on foreign policy. He'd give us a solid pro-1st,
-4th, -5th, and -6th amendments majority on the court, and probably
avoid getting us entangled in the developing mess in the "Middle East"
(which is actually the Near East).

I'm not sure what the result would be on the 2nd. He's been pretty much
pro-2nd in the past, but then... he was a Senator from Vermont. As he's
moved into the Presidential race, he's come out somewhat for gun
control. The problem is, I don't know which Sanders we'd get on that one.

Umm... one negative on Sanders (besides economy): he opposes the
Citizens United decision. I think CU was correctly decided even though I
don't always like the results.

Chris Zakes

unread,
Jan 25, 2016, 8:41:16 PM1/25/16
to
My major worry about Trump is that he appears to be spending his time
appealing to the prejudices of the lowest common denominator in the
vothing public. That worries me.

-Chris Zakes
Texas
--

GNU Terry Pratchett
Mind how you go.

Don Bruder

unread,
Jan 25, 2016, 9:07:32 PM1/25/16
to
In article <n86ghc$mt2$1...@dont-email.me>,
That's not a negative - that's a HUGE plus. The CU decision was the most
completely wrong interpretation of the constitution that's ever been
handed down. Corporations *ARE NOT* persons, and *MUST NOT* be permitted
to exercise the rights of persons. Period. Ever. Under any
circumstances. By allowing them to do so, the rights of actual human
beings are not just undercut, they're effectively eliminated.

--
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q

MajorOz

unread,
Jan 25, 2016, 10:35:45 PM1/25/16
to
hmmm....

Are "they" subject to income tax.....lawsuits.... ?

Are "they" allowed to speak in "their" defense ?

Barry Gold

unread,
Jan 25, 2016, 11:52:16 PM1/25/16
to
Barry Gold wrote:
>> Umm... one negative on Sanders (besides economy): he opposes the
>> >Citizens United decision. I think CU was correctly decided even though I
>> >don't always like the results.

Don Bruder wrote:
> That's not a negative - that's a HUGE plus. The CU decision was the most
> completely wrong interpretation of the constitution that's ever been
> handed down. Corporations*ARE NOT* persons, and*MUST NOT* be permitted
> to exercise the rights of persons. Period. Ever. Under any
> circumstances. By allowing them to do so, the rights of actual human
> beings are not just undercut, they're effectively eliminated.

I disagree. Most people misunderstand the point of Citizens United. It's
not that Corporations have a free speech right because they are
"persons". CU is about the whole purpose of the First Amendment.

Why do we have the right to speak freely? Is it just so we can have the
pleasure of hearing our voices (or reading our own words)? No, it's for
the benefit of those who will hear what we say or read what we write.

Under CU, Corporations have the right of free speech for the benefit of
those who will hear it: so that they can hear a point of view and
consider it, evaluate it along with the other things they know.

Now... this whole idea -- of hearing somebody's thoughts and evaluating
them along with everything else we know -- is being called into question
by modern Psychology. We know about things like

* Confirmation Bias: you believe statements and events that confirm what
you already believe, disbelieve or ignore those that contradict it

* Emotional reactions: You hear certain key words ("dog whistles") and
react based on your particular set of fears. I'm afraid of Christians
(esp. Evangelicals) imposing their religion on the rest of us, so I give
a lot of weight to the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
Most Conservatives are afraid of the Government coming in and imposing a
tyranny(*), so they want guns to defend themselves. The Religious Right
thinks homosexuality is a big deal, so they can be motivated to come out
and vote by politicians saying that same-sex marriage will destroy the
family. Nobody considers exactly _how_ SSM is going to affect hetero
families.

Or on the other hand, most liberals are big on equality and distrust
large corporations even while they trust the government with even more
centralized power, so making a big deal about "the 1%", "Big Oil", "Big
this", "Big That", "60(@) people own half the wealth in the world" will
motivate _them_ to come out and vote for left-wing candidates.

So if that's what motivates us to vote, is there really any point to
Democracy? It's just a bunch of people reacting to emotional triggers
without (in most cases) any true rational thought involved.

Even here -- and I'm convinced we're better than the general population
-- it seem to me that half of our Conservatives and at least half of our
self-identified liberals are reacting emotionally more than rationally.
Probably me too, although I'm not aware of it and do my best to apply
rational thought to all this.

(*) Sometimes to a ridiculous extent. Consider the "black helicopters"
and "fringed flag" conspiracy theories

(@) Or whatever the number is. Less than 100 in any case.

Fred Brown

unread,
Jan 26, 2016, 9:37:47 AM1/26/16
to

"Don Bruder" <dak...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:n86k7r$lh1$3...@dont-email.me...
So in your opinion a group of citizens and voters do not have the right to
band
together, pool their money and advocate for or againt a political candidate?
First of all the broad majority of Americans don't understand campaign
finance regulations and the Citizens United decision very well. What
Citizens United challenged was the FEC's decision that prohibited CU from
airing over cable TV a video CU had produced that was highly critical of
2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on the grounds that the video
was produced by a "corporation."


Citizens was incorporated as a not-for-profit corp merely to protect it's
corporate officers from induvidual lawsuits. Citizens is made up of
individuals who pooled their money to be spent on Independent Electioneering
Expenditures advocating for or against political candidates. Money that
would not be given to any candidate, or any candidates PAC or party.

Soon after the decision two questions were publicly polled:


(1) do you support or oppose the recent ruling by the Supreme Court that
says corporations and unions can spend as much money as they want to help
political candidates win elections?


80 percent of those polled said they opposed the ruling.


( the problem with this question is that corporations and unions can only
spend the amount of money that they have, not "as much as they want."


(2.) Would you support or oppose an effort by Congress to reinstate limits
on corporate and union spending on election campaigns?


On this question, 72 percent said they supported having Congress reinstate
the limits.


( the problem with this question is that the Supreme Court didn't "lift any
limits" on spending.

What the Supreme Court "lifted" was the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance
law's absolute ban on corporations and union independent electioneering
expenditures.)


Now if the poll question had been phrased, "Would you support efforts by
Congress to repeal part of the First Amendment in order to limit or ban
corporations from spending money on independent expenditures for election
campaigns?


How many people would have been in favor? Not very many, I suspect.


The so-called campaign finance reform community has invested a great deal of
effort into confusing the issue by blurring the distinction between
independent expenditures by corporations and unions (permitted by Citizens
United) and direct contributions to candidates by corporations and unions
(still banned).


Independent expenditures are Free Speech, whether they are one person
speaking for or against a candidate or a group of people speaking for or
against a candidate.

Now for the Big Surprise:

Citizens United did not lift any restrictions upon spending amounts. It only
lifted the restrictions upon independent electioneering.

The spending amounts restrictions were challenged by Speech Now Org and were
struck down by the DC Appellate Court. The government chose not to appeal to
SCOTUS.

Tim Merrigan

unread,
Jan 26, 2016, 4:55:33 PM1/26/16
to
On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 18:07:30 -0800, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net>
wrote:

>> Umm... one negative on Sanders (besides economy): he opposes the
>> Citizens United decision. I think CU was correctly decided even though I
>> don't always like the results.
>
>That's not a negative - that's a HUGE plus. The CU decision was the most
>completely wrong interpretation of the constitution that's ever been
>handed down. Corporations *ARE NOT* persons, and *MUST NOT* be permitted
>to exercise the rights of persons. Period. Ever. Under any
>circumstances. By allowing them to do so, the rights of actual human
>beings are not just undercut, they're effectively eliminated.

I agree with Mr. Bruder about corporations being people, but my
problem with CU is that it allows big money, whether private or
corporate, to drown out everyone else. Corporations being persons had
already been established (albeit mistaken) law for around 120 years,
since Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 US
394 (1886).

I think that the CU decision should have been that if corporations are
persons, they should be subject to the same restrictions as biological
persons, e.g. $3,000* per annum per candidate, or 100,000* per annum
total in political donations. Thus putting GM on an equal footing
with John Q Citizen.

*or whatever the numbers actually are.
--

I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation, from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Feel free to use the above variant pledge in your own postings.

Tim Merrigan

Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

unread,
Jan 26, 2016, 5:27:55 PM1/26/16
to
On 1/25/16 9:07 PM, Don Bruder wrote:
> In article <n86ghc$mt2$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Barry Gold <Barry...@ca.rr.com> wrote:

>> Umm... one negative on Sanders (besides economy): he opposes the
>> Citizens United decision. I think CU was correctly decided even though I
>> don't always like the results.
>
> That's not a negative - that's a HUGE plus. The CU decision was the most
> completely wrong interpretation of the constitution that's ever been
> handed down. Corporations *ARE NOT* persons, and *MUST NOT* be permitted
> to exercise the rights of persons.


Unless they get to be treated like persons in all other ways: for
instance, if a company IN ANY WAY causes the death of another person,
the COMPANY can be arrested and tried for homicide, and if convicted,
sent to jail or executed.

Unless and until you can establish equivalence of personhood, no, they
aren't people, and don't have any of the rights thereof.




--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

Don Bruder

unread,
Jan 26, 2016, 8:46:58 PM1/26/16
to
In article <n88ro2$4td$1...@dont-email.me>,
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

> On 1/25/16 9:07 PM, Don Bruder wrote:
> > In article <n86ghc$mt2$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > Barry Gold <Barry...@ca.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >> Umm... one negative on Sanders (besides economy): he opposes the
> >> Citizens United decision. I think CU was correctly decided even though I
> >> don't always like the results.
> >
> > That's not a negative - that's a HUGE plus. The CU decision was the most
> > completely wrong interpretation of the constitution that's ever been
> > handed down. Corporations *ARE NOT* persons, and *MUST NOT* be permitted
> > to exercise the rights of persons.
>
>
> Unless they get to be treated like persons in all other ways: for
> instance, if a company IN ANY WAY causes the death of another person,
> the COMPANY can be arrested and tried for homicide, and if convicted,
> sent to jail or executed.
>
> Unless and until you can establish equivalence of personhood, no, they
> aren't people, and don't have any of the rights thereof.

Thanks for saving me some typing. And thanks to Tim, as well. Between
the two of you, you've managed to elucidate the core of my problem with
corps being treated as people.

Kevin C

unread,
Jan 26, 2016, 9:18:25 PM1/26/16
to
This is what I call wonk-wonk humor, and depends heavily on the perceived leanings of the reader rather than staying closer to the subject. To work as humor, a better choice would be in Panel 1, a standard donkey-headed representation of the DNC saying to Hillary, "Good news: We've found someone that makes you look good," and then, in Panel 2, Bill, with a woman's stocking coming out of his coat pocket. Here it does three things: One, poke's fun at Bill Clinton's history; two, point out that his failings are not hers, and three, do a misdirect from the current e-mail scandal. To that end, it's *very* important that such a cartoon have a woman's stocking coming out of Bill Clinton's pocket to serve as a humorous reminder.

Unfortunately, picking any Democrat from the current field sinks into the same wonk-wonk humor, so this sort of set-up is limited.

Kevin C

unread,
Jan 26, 2016, 9:21:09 PM1/26/16
to
On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 3:09:25 PM UTC-5, Barry Gold wrote:
> This could turn into a real "lesser of two evils" election. I don't like
> Hillary Clinton one bit, but if I have to choose between her and Trump,
> there's no question. Trump is on my "visit the Australian Consulate"
> list, and Clinton isn't.

Clinton vs Trump is right up there with the Simpson's Kang vs Kodos election. I might go Libertarian this one.

Kevin C

unread,
Jan 26, 2016, 9:23:11 PM1/26/16
to
On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 7:16:38 PM UTC-5, MajorOz wrote:
> My evolving support for T isn't based only on programs, but on the gleeful enjoyment of watching the shitting, screaming, gnashing of teeth among the literati.
>
> That, alone, is worth a vote for him.

No, not you too. It's not too late to turn from the Dark side.

Don Bruder

unread,
Jan 26, 2016, 10:10:14 PM1/26/16
to
In article <518bf933-a08e-4606...@googlegroups.com>,
Unfortunately, the reality is that if you "go libertarian" because the
others suck so hard (or pretty much any other reason, for that matter),
you're effectively throwing your vote away.

Even more unfortunately, there's not a friggin' useful thing that can be
done about it when there's no such thing as a good candidate to be found
anywhere on the ballot.

And "they" wonder why voter turnout is so low...

MajorOz

unread,
Jan 26, 2016, 11:09:50 PM1/26/16
to
On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 9:10:14 PM UTC-6, Don Bruder wrote:
> In article <518bf933-a08e-4606...@googlegroups.com>,
> Kevin C <kevi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 3:09:25 PM UTC-5, Barry Gold wrote:
> > > This could turn into a real "lesser of two evils" election. I don't like
> > > Hillary Clinton one bit, but if I have to choose between her and Trump,
> > > there's no question. Trump is on my "visit the Australian Consulate"
> > > list, and Clinton isn't.
> >
> > Clinton vs Trump is right up there with the Simpson's Kang vs Kodos election.
> > I might go Libertarian this one.
>
> Unfortunately, the reality is that if you "go libertarian" because the
> others suck so hard (or pretty much any other reason, for that matter),
> you're effectively throwing your vote away.

....as did the Republicans in 1856.....

Fred Brown

unread,
Jan 27, 2016, 8:58:33 AM1/27/16
to

"Tim Merrigan" <tp...@ca.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hhpfabt9l434t9mcj...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 18:07:30 -0800, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> Umm... one negative on Sanders (besides economy): he opposes the
>>> Citizens United decision. I think CU was correctly decided even though I
>>> don't always like the results.
>>
>>That's not a negative - that's a HUGE plus. The CU decision was the most
>>completely wrong interpretation of the constitution that's ever been
>>handed down. Corporations *ARE NOT* persons, and *MUST NOT* be permitted
>>to exercise the rights of persons. Period. Ever. Under any
>>circumstances. By allowing them to do so, the rights of actual human
>>beings are not just undercut, they're effectively eliminated.
>
> I agree with Mr. Bruder about corporations being people, but my
> problem with CU is that it allows big money, whether private or
> corporate, to drown out everyone else. Corporations being persons had
> already been established (albeit mistaken) law for around 120 years,
> since Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 US
> 394 (1886).
>
> I think that the CU decision should have been that if corporations are
> persons, they should be subject to the same restrictions as biological
> persons, e.g. $3,000* per annum per candidate, or 100,000* per annum
> total in political donations. Thus putting GM on an equal footing
> with John Q Citizen.
>
> *or whatever the numbers actually are.

Citizens United wasn't about donating money to candidates or their PACs.
It was about people pooling their money to pay for electioneering
communications
for or against a candidate. Citizens is a Not For Profit Corporation.
Citizens does not donate to any candidate or PAC, no candidate has any voice
in what Citizen's message will be.
People have a 1st Amendment right to voice support or opposition for a
political
candidate.
Citizens United sued the FEC because the FEC mistakenly prohibited them from
airing over cable TV a video critical of Hillary Clinton in the 2008
election cycle.
The FEC said Citizens could not air the video because it was produced by a
corporation. Most organizations, like the Kof C, Shriners etc, incorporate
to
protect the individual members in case of a law suit. The corp and not the
individual members gets sued.
I suggest you read the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law and you'll
understand why Citizens is incorporated.
If you want to spend more than a small amount of money on electioneering
communication for or against a candidate, flyers, bumper stickers, radio, TV
you must register with the FEC, hire a platoon of lawyers to navigate
jumping
through hoops and interperting red tape to properly fill out volumes of
paperwork
correctly to avoid hefty fines and possible imprisonment for failing to dot
an i or
cross a t.

Chris Zakes

unread,
Jan 27, 2016, 9:07:50 AM1/27/16
to
On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 19:35:43 -0800 (PST), an orbital mind-control
laser caused MajorOz <ozm...@gmail.com> to write:

And perhaps the most important question: Can Texas put one on death
row?

Chris Zakes

unread,
Jan 27, 2016, 9:15:13 AM1/27/16
to
On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 19:10:12 -0800, an orbital mind-control laser
caused Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> to write:

>In article <518bf933-a08e-4606...@googlegroups.com>,
> Kevin C <kevi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 3:09:25 PM UTC-5, Barry Gold wrote:
>> > This could turn into a real "lesser of two evils" election. I don't like
>> > Hillary Clinton one bit, but if I have to choose between her and Trump,
>> > there's no question. Trump is on my "visit the Australian Consulate"
>> > list, and Clinton isn't.
>>
>> Clinton vs Trump is right up there with the Simpson's Kang vs Kodos election.
>> I might go Libertarian this one.
>
>Unfortunately, the reality is that if you "go libertarian" because the
>others suck so hard (or pretty much any other reason, for that matter),
>you're effectively throwing your vote away.

Thereby perpetuating the Republocrat lock on American politics. Is
that really a good thing?


>Even more unfortunately, there's not a friggin' useful thing that can be
>done about it when there's no such thing as a good candidate to be found
>anywhere on the ballot.
>
>And "they" wonder why voter turnout is so low...

So what would happen if all the folks who don't bother to vote because
they're "throwing their vote away" actually *did* vote for the
Libertarian candidate?

Tim Merrigan

unread,
Jan 27, 2016, 11:26:25 AM1/27/16
to
On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 08:07:49 -0600, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>
wrote:
"Killing" a corporation is fairly easy. Suspend its charter, and
disband its board. Jailing it is a bit more difficult, since it
hasn't got a physical body to incarcerate.
--

Tim Merrigan

unread,
Jan 27, 2016, 1:43:53 PM1/27/16
to
On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 08:15:12 -0600, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>
wrote:
They wouldn't. Some would vote for the CPUSA candidate, some would
vote for the Nazi Party candidate, and everything in between.

Ray Abbitt

unread,
Jan 27, 2016, 6:00:36 PM1/27/16
to
In article <7tjhabd4isp37tsv8...@4ax.com>,
Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>So what would happen if all the folks who don't bother to vote because
>they're "throwing their vote away" actually *did* vote for the
>Libertarian candidate?
>
While it will never happen, if even a few (more) of us did maybe the
major parties would take us a little more seriously. (By us I mean those
of us that really aren't aligned with either of the major parties)

-ray

Kevin C

unread,
Jan 27, 2016, 6:49:18 PM1/27/16
to
On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 10:10:14 PM UTC-5, Don Bruder wrote:
> Unfortunately, the reality is that if you "go libertarian" because the
> others suck so hard (or pretty much any other reason, for that matter),
> you're effectively throwing your vote away.
>
> Even more unfortunately, there's not a friggin' useful thing that can be
> done about it when there's no such thing as a good candidate to be found
> anywhere on the ballot.
>
> And "they" wonder why voter turnout is so low...

This we know. It's a question of whether we can, with good conscience, support either likely candicate. We know it's throwing our vote away, but we'd be able to live with ourselves.

Barry Gold

unread,
Feb 3, 2016, 1:59:11 AM2/3/16
to
I don't know how you'd put a corporation in a cell, let alone one on
death row. But you can certainly "execute" a corporation: take away
their right to _be_ a corporation, and the whole thing dissolves. Of
course, the people responsible can go ahead and start another
corporation. [I'm kind of assuming that the State would also take away
the corporation's name, so you couldn't just start another corp. with
the same name, but most of the time that doesn't matter.]

But I have a hard time imagining a corporation (at least the kind of
corporation most people here are thinking of) committing a capital
crime. The US Supreme Court has basically said that the only crimes
that can qualify for the death penalty are:
. murder
. treason
. espionage
. certain UCMJ crimes:
+ desertion in time of war
+ striking a superior officer or disobeying a lawful order
of a SO
+ mutiny
+ sedition (revolt or violence with intent to overthrow or
destroy civil authority, in concert with one or more other persons)
+ cowardice in the face of the enemy, looting in battle, etc.


Cindy Wells

unread,
Feb 3, 2016, 10:16:41 AM2/3/16
to
On 2/3/2016 12:58 AM, Barry Gold wrote:

> But I have a hard time imagining a corporation (at least the kind of
> corporation most people here are thinking of) committing a capital
> crime. The US Supreme Court has basically said that the only crimes
> that can qualify for the death penalty are:
> . murder
> . treason
> . espionage
> . certain UCMJ crimes:
> + desertion in time of war
> + striking a superior officer or disobeying a lawful order
> of a SO
> + mutiny
> + sedition (revolt or violence with intent to overthrow or
> destroy civil authority, in concert with one or more other persons)
> + cowardice in the face of the enemy, looting in battle, etc.
>
>

Mining, chemical and other corporations can certainly commit murder.
However, it probably can't be first degree murder; it's more depraved
indifference. The usual pattern is delaying maintenance/structural
improvements until after a collapse/explosion occurs. Then the
fatalities (whether employee or nearby civilians) should be counted as
murder, since they were almost inevitable.

Cindy Wells
(Even chemical companies who have marketed their safety record have put
off replacing corroded parts to increase this quarter's profits. Since
OSHA and EPA fines weren't pegged to inflation, they became cheaper than
the maintenance costs.)

Tim Merrigan

unread,
Feb 3, 2016, 4:31:01 PM2/3/16
to
On Tue, 02 Feb 2016 22:58:18 -0800, Barry Gold <Barry...@ca.rr.com>
wrote:

>But I have a hard time imagining a corporation (at least the kind of
>corporation most people here are thinking of) committing a capital
>crime. The US Supreme Court has basically said that the only crimes
>that can qualify for the death penalty are:
> . murder
> . treason
> . espionage

Coporations can, and have, commited murder, treason, and espionage.

Don Bruder

unread,
Feb 3, 2016, 5:47:08 PM2/3/16
to
In article <u9s4bblr89ju1vsk3...@4ax.com>,
Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Feb 2016 22:58:18 -0800, Barry Gold <Barry...@ca.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >But I have a hard time imagining a corporation (at least the kind of
> >corporation most people here are thinking of) committing a capital
> >crime. The US Supreme Court has basically said that the only crimes
> >that can qualify for the death penalty are:
> > . murder
> > . treason
> > . espionage
>
> Coporations can, and have, commited murder, treason, and espionage.

Get back with me when they've been tried, convicted, and executed for
it. Once that happens, THEN we can discuss whether they should expect to
be treated as having the same rights as a person.
0 new messages