Forum Post: The Blood Oath: Public Comment Period Open
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 30, 2011, 8:18 a.m. EST by Outlier
(115)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The Blood Oath:
I do so solemnly swear that I believe with the deepest conviction that money is not speech and that only human beings are persons entitled to constitutional rights including the right to access the legislative process and the right to influence politicians, political campaigns and elections.
Furthermore, I promise to use my position as an elected official to make a priority of instituting and/or supporting a process whereby corporate person-hood is legally dissolved and the concept of money as speech is legally abolished.
Those that swear by The Blood Oath will not be required to run a blade across their palms. The Blood Oath is a symbolic recognition that human beings have blood running through their veins and corporations do not. Elected officials and those seeking elected office will be asked to swear by The Blood Oath; their accedence or refusal shall be well publicized. Read more
AMEN.
spread the gospel! I'm already swearing NEVER to vote for anyone taking corporate money. every again. never. That means you too Obama.
ditto
Thanks.
On the face of it I like it -
And it could actually work, since the Renquist Tax Pledge itself worked so well - but there in lies the caution - the Renquist Tax Pledge does work very well - at ensuring the downfall of the Repelican party . . . not to mention that the budget won't get straightened out until after all of these nimrods and nitwits who signed that pledge are removed from office.
While the Norquist pledge was clearly directed at Republicans, The Blood Oath is truly non-partisan. Top democrats are just as likely to be recipients of corporate endowment as top republicans.
"Top democrats are just as likely to be recipients of corporate endowment as top republicans."
leftists HATE hearing this, even though it is 100% true.
While I confess that I am a registered Democrat, I harbor no loyalty to any political party. Both the Democratic and Republican parties gorge themselves at the trough of corporate person-hood and drink deeply from the well of "money is speech."
then why be registered with a corrupt organization built on lies? does your stronger distaste for the other party guide you to oppose them by joining their practically identical opponent? not assuming, just asking.
In New York, you can't vote in the primaries unless you're registered in a party, and I want to vote in the primaries.
so register when you must to vote in primaries and then register independent afterwards.
what would really make both parties shit their pants is if EVERYONE registered as independent and stopped send these assholes money.
I agree that in this case, starving the beast makes sense.
no, it is true - that's how the game is currently played. Just because one plays by those rules is not in and of itself evidence of corruption.
When one stands in the way of changing these rules, then we begin to generate evidence.
There's a huge difference.
"no, it is true"
that's what I said, that it is true.
not really sure what you're getting at here.
the implication is that just because one receives corporate donations one is automatically guilty of collusion - but the fact is that whoever spends the most usually wins.
I don't dispute that everyone takes the money. I don't dispute the fact that this tarnishes the credibility of the entire system - it does.
I don't dispute the system must change.
What I dispute is the assumption that each and every single politician in DC is in fact corrupt - because it isn't true.
I agree that "each and every single politician in DC is in fact corrupt" is an overstatement. If I implied that, my bad. I don't live in a binary world and I do not believe that.
I think it is more like 95-97% of them are corrupt.
you didn't say that -
it just seems to follow in everyone's mind.
I agree. very few things are 100% anything! yet so many posts here are loaded with silly absolutist comments like "All..." and "Every..." and dumb shit like that.
makes it very hard to take this ows seriously.
well, generally you are correct, absolutism is a foolish thing.
but here's the deal - the party of absolutism is itself absolutely, resolutely, absolute. and they have to go.
each and every single one.
Why "Blood Oath"?
The Blood Oath is a symbolic recognition that human beings have blood running through their veins and corporations do not.
"Associations" need to retain SOME personhood or they can't enter into contracts. See http://occupywallst.org/forum/coporations-have-been-people-for-between-63-and-16/
Certainly corporations, like people, can be parties in a lawsuit, can be taxed and can be constrained by law. But only citizens have the right to vote, and only citizens should have the right to access and affect the political process.
How do you propose to allow some corporations like Fox and MSNBC to speak all day about politics and specific candidates while banning other corporations who simply have a "media arm." ? You need to be very specific in your response as it is a finely shaded area of the law.
I agree that corporations like Fox and MSNBC will use their venues to advocate for the continuation of corporate personhood. Attempting to focus the attention of their audience on specific details will be one of their strategies.
But, the fact of the matter is, corporations are not people and all the details can be worked out. Corporations will continue to enjoy certain rights, but only American citizenas have the right to vote, and only American citizens have the right to access the legislative process and influence the political process.
I'm 100% behind you, and I think we can pretty easily stop the DIRECT contributions of Corporations, Unions, etc to politicians (see http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-the-people-in-order-to-a-proposal/ ). What I have never figured out is how to stop them from airing an opinion on television when there is no sign they are directly connected to the politician or candidate in question. This, by the way, was the issue in Citizens United, and I don't see how a law can be crafted to allow MSNBC and FOX to do it while banning others.
I certainly don't have the answer. But legally dissolving corporate personhood and legally abolishing the concept of money as speech is a step in the right direction.
That just means we need new rules for corporate contracts. Very easily remedied.
How do you propose to allow some corporations like Fox and MSNBC to speak all day about politics and specific candidates while banning other corporations who simply have a "media arm." ? You need to be very specific in your response as it is a finely shaded area of the law.
Does blood oath mean you sacrificed a chicken? You could hold true to your own morals why do you need to seek the approval of the people on this site?
You obviously did not read the post, which I admit, your are not compelled to do.
The Blood Oath is a symbolic acknowledgement of the fact that human beings have blood in their veins and corporations do not.
How do corporations not have blood? They are made up of people too.
People work for corporations. Corporations are legal constructs. They are not flesh and blood human beings.
Run by people. Corporations don't just function o n their own. They had to be created by someone.
Houses are created by people, but they are not people. Consult a physician if you don't believe me.
A house just sits there. A corporation works with and affects the market as controlled by the CEO which is a person.
The people in a house or household work with and affects the market and the community as determined by, to a certain extent, the head of the household.
The functioning entities within a household or a corporation are people, but the household is not a person and a corporation is not a person.
Consult a physician if you don't believe me.
Good lord you're dense. I never said that a corporation was a person. Just run by people. A corporation itself does not decide who to give money to or what secrets to cover up. That is the officials in the corporations discussions. Maybe focus on the people instead of the unfeeling and dead aspect of their lives.
So, we agree, corporations are not people my friend!
Yes if you want to be so black and white. The corporations themselves are not people. Only an insane person would think so.
Our current legal system is therefore insane. This is why I support legally dissolving corporate personhood and legally abolishing the concept of money as speech--to bring sanity back to our political process.
You could call a corporation an industrial union. and in that sense it is a conglomerate of persons, whose interests are so aligned that they speak with one voice. and their money directs the market with one hand. but if they were taxed like everyone else, their hand would be brittle and their voice would whittle.
Not likely. I'm not sure where you get that.
unions, corporations, lobbies, chamber of commerce, business community, haves, havenots, banking community, billionaires club, fox, msnbc, google, yahoo, liberals, progressives, libertarians, blue bogs and independents are, unsemantically speaking, all Americans
To be perfectly honest I have no idea what you're talking about.
the biggest impedimenta to enlightenment is stumbling over semantics
Don't semantics make a language a language?
You drive a car. therefore the car is a person.
No there is a person operating the car just as there is someone operating the corporation.
A car is not made up of people, nor is it run by people. A person turns a car on, but it is run by machinery parts and fuel. A corporation is made up of people and is run by the people that make it up.
"nor is it run by people" false
"machinery parts and fuel" so corporations are only people? if they have no product or means of production....
your user profile is less than 3 days old. you don't believe your argument, you simply came to troll.
And by the way, slinging the term "troll" around does not make you sound intelligent. If anything, it does the opposite.
Seriously? A person does not power a car; a person makes the parts for a car, but it is the parts themselves that cause the car to run. In a corporation, people run the business. One can't just "turn on" a corporation and leave then expect anything to happen. And yes, corporations have products but you'd have to be pretty naive to think that products conduct a corporation.
i don't care what you call it, you're a fraud.
You know, just because you can't think of a smart argument against me doesn't mean I'm a "fraud." But whatever, I'll take that as a compliment. And whenever someone asks me how accepting OSW I'll tell them, "Oh they're great, they'll listen to you; as long as you have been with their movement all along and don't have an opinion of your own."
i am neutral of OWS. i come here to exchange ideas. your lust for discrediting OWS only reinforces my previous position.
My lust for discrediting OWS? How have I done that huh? So because I corrected you on one statement I have discredited the entirety of OWS? You know, if you feel like you can claim that your statements stand for all of OWS then I think it is you sir who is the troll. I do not waste my time talking to trolls. Good day.
this shit might work on your retard buddies but it ain't fly'n here dude. you're a fraud. give it up.
What a joke.
No, I do believe he is dead serious. You should give it some thought and facebook/tweet it.
I'm sure he is but that doesn't make it any less ridiculous. The proper way to handle that is through legislation and not some oath. Seriously,Clinton swore on the bible to tell the truth and lied through his teeth. Do you honestly think something like a "blood oath" which doesn't even include blood is going to fix things?
if you read it, it's conceptual. perspective should be applied.
Lol I of all people understand that richard. I just don't think it's a realistic way of tackling the problem.
i can't see it hurting. i think a bombardment of approaches could apply the right amount of pressure.