not that I expected anything less from this guy, but what a FUCKING, TERRIBLE, dip shit.

>> ^EMPIRE:

not that I expected anything less from this guy, but what a FUCKING, TERRIBLE, dip shit.


Perhaps you mean *terrible? ...not that I can invoke such actions... yeah yeah, siftbot...

Invocations (terrible) cannot be called by zombieater because zombieater is not privileged - sorry.

Any idea what the context is?

If it's tax policy, Romney has a point. Taxing a corporation is the same as taxing its shareholders and customers. It would be interesting to see republican voters thinking seriously about who is actually going to pay for fixing our national finances. Unfortunately they're likely to come to the same conclusion as the populists: "not me."

"Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to a few very rich people"

There, fixed that for ya Romney, no need to thank me, just doing my civic duty to keep thing accurate.

I fail to see what is so terrible about making the point that corporations are comprised of people. He's stating the obvious. Can a corporation exist without people? NO. Corporations create jobs, they employ people so they can enjoy a livelihood. Would society be better off without corporations? Of course not. In a free society you are welcome to start your own corporation. By doing so, so help CREATE wealth, not DESTROY it. Somebody should make some economic classes available here.

Do NOT Vote for this man!

More at the AP.

He's technically right. It makes for a bad sound-bite, but corporations are literally considered to be individuals. Look it up.

>> ^nach0s:

He's technically right. It makes for a bad sound-bite, but corporations are literally considered to be individuals. Look it up.


Yeah I don't get what everyone's so mad about. It's true Corporations are considered people by the law of the land. A law which we can change if you get educated and organized about it...there's plenty of groups already working hard trying to do just that.

Employees, and all those providing services the employees buy, shareholders earnings, the profits people make on the purchases of goods/services provided by the corporation, are inconsequential to the earnings of a select few? Hardly. Do I think top management of many, if not most, of major corporations in the US are overpaid? Yes. Particularly in consideration of poor performance. What possible sense does it make to pay bonuses when a company is losing money? "Retention bonuses"? Give me a break. Taxing corporations excessively won't change this behavior. Most of these corporations are publicly owned anyhow. A coordinated effort by the majority shareholders could vote out BODs of these companies. Why don't they? Because they are greedy too, if you want to call it that. They don't want to devalue their investment. >> ^Crosswords:

"Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to a few very rich people"
There, fixed that for ya Romney, no need to thank me, just doing my civic duty to keep thing accurate.

He didn't say that corporations are comprised of people. He said corporations ARE people--which is the stance of the corporatist in America. Our Supreme Court has said that corporations have the rights granted to people by the Constitution of the United States of America (they are Wrong).

If you classify corporations as people--then you would have to classify them as psycopathic people.

This guy is like a condensed soup of EVERYTHING wrong in US government.

He wasn't talking in the context you ascribe. He was talking in the context of what I said, that corporations are comprised of people and the money corporations make goes into people's pockets. This wasn't a deep legal discussion going on, he was just responding to hecklers, which he did in a very polite and controlled fashion.>> ^Boise_Lib:

He didn't say that corporations are comprised of people. He said corporations ARE people--which is the stance of the corporatist in America. Our Supreme Court has said that corporations have the rights granted to people by the Constitution of the United States of America (they are Wrong).
If you classify corporations as people--then you would have to classify them as psycopathic people.

Nice to see the Sift hasn't lost its left lean in my absence. Hey, hey, Deathcow, how's it hanging?

*news

Adding video to channels (News) - requested by NetRunner.

@snoozedoctor How dare you respond accurately to his statements! Can we just agree to pretend he was talking about corporate personhood? It's such a good story!

Lol. Yep, the fact that corporations are comprised of people, which is what he said, is rather stale, obvious, and uninteresting. Corporate personhood is MUCH more interesting a topic.

Swallow that corporate seed.

Seriously, and you guys complain about the media getting carried away?

>> ^[defunct] snoozedoctor:

Nice to see the Sift hasn't lost its left lean in my absence. Hey, hey, Deathcow, how's it hanging?




I do not have a left or right lean. They are both destroying the country. The last thing we need is this billionaire wannabe in charge.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Mitt, Romney, Corporations, No they are not' to 'Mitt Romney, Corporations, people, taxes, republicans' - edited by xxovercastxx

This isn't quite as stupid when it's taken in its appropriate context.

Still stupid, but not as much.

Also, it might be terrible but it's not *terrible.

*nochannel *election *politics *news *talks *money *controversy

This video has been removed from all channels (Terrible, Standup, Election, Politics, News, Talks, Money, Controversy) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by xxovercastxx. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Adding video to channels (Controversy, Election, Money, News, Politics, Talks) - requested by xxovercastxx.

*quality. So glad he's shriveling on the proverbial vine.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by blankfist.

It's called a Freudian slip people; when a person's true thoughts slip out without conscious deliberation.
Context has nothing to do with this, dickheads friends.

>> ^dag:

I married Apple Inc in a small civil ceremony. We consummated our marriage in my basement.


um...you accidentally had your sarcasm check on...

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:

Any idea what the context is?
If it's tax policy, Romney has a point. Taxing a corporation is the same as taxing its shareholders and customers. It would be interesting to see republican voters thinking seriously about who is actually going to pay for fixing our national finances. Unfortunately they're likely to come to the same conclusion as the populists: "not me."


I could be mistaken, but in the full exchange I think he was saying that Democrats want to "raise people's taxes" and someone in the audience heckles "not people, corporations, corporations" then he responds with what's shown in this clip. Only saw the full segment once though, so I'm probably paraphrasing a bit.

Anyway, if people own corporations, but corporations have the Constitutional rights of people, isn't that slavery? Maybe Romney could free them and be the next Lincoln. We'll look back at oppressive shareholders in the same way we now view southern plantation owners.

it's not that all corporate stuff is good or bad. it's a big shade of grey.

i think a better question is whether we'd be better off with a different legal framework for large entities other than the corporate charter, which often operates at the expense of the public good.
An executive in a corporation only has a fiduciary duty to maximize the earnings of the shareholders. There is no duty to public trust.

right now corporations generally:

a. are mainly owned by the upper class
b. mainly employ the lower class
c. mass produce second rate goods
d. Dominate smaller and emerging markets/
undercutting emerging technologies and competitors in order to monopolize markets. Once competition is squashed, they can price control, insuring profit.
e. Carefully protect their trade secrets in order to maximize profits. In other words, they don't share.
f. due to a history of conservative US judicial decisions, are treated "legally" as people for purposes of "free speech" and unlimited political access (money), but are not treated like people when it comes to liability for their actions.
g. Wield enormous financial political power that incredibly undermines the democratic idea of one person, one vote.
h. Mega-corporations are almost always multi-national - operating in different countries and "forum" shopping for the cheapest labor, best tax benefits, cheapest resources, easiest military dictator to support, and crappiest environmental standards. And as multinationals - they often operate outside of ANY laws, since jurisdiction becomes such a complicated issue.

to really fix the problems with corporations, the legal framework on an international level needs to be addressed, and soon.

and before any of you right wing dipshits start jabbering about liberal bias, know this:
I'm an ex-lawyer and a critical, independent thinker, so think twice and read carefully before emailing me your bullshit.

and to sum,
yes it's great to have a widescreen tv, a latte, and a car. but we don't need organizations that operate with impunity to do it.

it's a handfull or artists, scientists, and engineers that push humanity. not corporate greed

@criticalthud




Damn, I hope I don't break Videosift with my amateur attempt at HTMLing.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

@criticalthud
Damn, I hope I don't break Videosift with my amateur attempt at HTMLing.


wow! thanks!

fuck i forgot to mention binding arbitration clauses in almost every contract you sign with a corp (that remove your ability to sue them in an actual court of law)!

HELP!
Anyone with the ability to edit comments.

I screwed the pooch on my embed. I think I left off an "/em" at the end.

Shit!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Looks fine to me.>> ^Boise_Lib:

HELP!
Anyone with the ability to edit comments.
I screwed the pooch on my embed. I think I left off an "/em" at the end.
Shit!