Argue a topic you are against here.

Corporations create jobs for people.
Politics help those corporations to create the jobs.
These jobs employ the people that provide the taxes for the government to run.
So allowing the corporate people into political office is olny natural and makes things run better.

Guns are designed to kill.

He Shoots...HE SCORES FOR THE WIN AND THE CROWD GOES WILD!!!

LOOOOSERRR! Loohooo Zuhurr.

(Not arguing counter to my own viewpoint, just refuting the silly assumptions in the post below...)

Fact, not even arguable.

Not really. They only hinder to greater or lesser extent.

I'd re-state: employees enable corporations to create the wealth that government takes in taxes in order to run.

"Allowing?" Who's disallowed? Would you reserve positions of authority to those of some political class? Or wouldn't it be better, since the government needs a thriving economy for a content populace and full treasury, to make sure that people with some business experience could influence the decision-making?

Corporations create jobs for people.
These jobs employ the people that provide the taxes for the government to run.
Allowing the corporate people into political office would allow the corporations to strip away all benefits corporations are supposed to provide the people and turn the people into little more than neo-serfs.

Now it's right.

You're brain damaged. :smoking:

Of course regular politicians wouldn't do that at all.

What's the ratio between the average US income and the average US politicians income?

In the UK it's around 4:1 in favour of the politicos, once you account for all the bag carrying roles the government hands out to MPs in exchange for loyalty, but without accounting for all the jollies they get to go on.

Fun Fact.

There are two dentists in the U.S. Senate.

You reckon they're going to pressure the FDA to recommend more sugar and less brushing?

Of course "regular politicians" will do that. Most people can and will be bought. Very few people will stand their ground and if there are many sell-outs against a few non-sell-outs, the sell-outs will either overrule or find some other way to get rid of those who won't fall in line.

Probably not likely since "healthy teeth" is a relatively new phenomena - it's only been in the last 50 to 100 years since the discovery of flouride and it's benefits. But, in another 100 or more years ..., yeah.

Um. They'll more than likely be quite dead by then.

Oh. Right. So, no younger dentists are going to be running for office.

What benefits are they "supposed to provide" beyond the production of valuable goods and services and a positive return to their investors?

Doesn't make much sense, does it?

Jenee is a smart and thoughtful person who is not... IS NOT... a fucking moron.

40 hour work week maximum or provide overtime. two breaks plus a lunch hour. a certain amount of paid time off.

All other government mandated benefits - not to mention OSHA and other safety regulations.

I'm not sure what you're getting at then. Are you suggesting that the two dentists currently in office are above normal human emotions?

Yeah, well welcome to my world. You lost me at Post 8.

I'd say the world owes Roman Polanski one.

Does it not then follow that corporate people are not the problem, that it is rather more universal to the human condition, and hence barring them from political office has no actual nett benefit?

My mistake. I assumed you were attempting to make the argument that not all businesspeople who are also politicians will sell out. I assumed you meant that the two dentists will not attempt to push for legislation to help 'their' business.

Please, tell me where I went wrong.

Liet does not... DOES NOT... masturbate by way of utilizing a headless Barbie Doll.

As long as there are humans, there will be corruption. That's why I don't trust politicians.

But, I trust the wealthy even less because money can and will buy power.

Volpone has not... HAS NOT... participated in a Marine train gang long enough to form a complete circle.

You assumed a lot.

My bad. Please explain, like I'm a two year old, what your point was.

Dan Leach would never... WOULD NEVER... have a hidden subdirectory in his artistic photos folder that contains hidden camera shower pictures from the local hostels.

I forgot.

You people do a terrible job of "opposite day."

I can see why you're so confused if you believe corporations exist for THOSE reasons.

As they're not natural persons, they're "supposed to do" whatever they're told in return for the priviledge of being allowed to exist.

That principle has mostly been lost, but it still legally can apply.

I don't think they exist for those reasons.

Trying to paint my position as such makes you look foolish. You aren't contradicting my points, nor are you making any points of your own.

However, if you believe that if corporations were able to go unregulated, yet continue with those same programs referenced above, you're delusional.

Maybe in your world. Of course, in your world, we'll all do as we're told.

Corporations are free associations of free people who pool capital for productive and profitable purposes. They exist to produce products and services that are of value and use to the economy and to provide a profit to their shareholders. That's it.

If they only existed to "do what they're told," they wouldn't exist. People don't associate freely and invest their capital in order to follow the directions of others.

Test my theory: would YOU invest YOUR money into any endeavor that was totally under the control of someone who didn't give two shits about your goals and priorities?

It gets very little traction today.