I am attributing it to the person WHO ACTUALLY SAID IT. Why? Because he said it. And because that is how it is recognizable. And because the Supreme Court didn't rule that corporations are people. That, again, is one malcontent's characterization, and, as others in here have tried to explain to you, the ruling to which you keep alluding (inaccurately) has a very specific scope.<quoted text>
You're taking a comment someone made about a law, and you're trying to attribute it solely to him.
Think of it like this, the SC has ruled that abortion is legal. So if I stand up and say "abortion is legal," does that make it MY policy?
You can just admit you were ignorant, or obtuse, and didn't realize Romney was only stating a legal policy of the supreme court. Instead you're trying to say "but but he's the one who formulated it into those specific words! That's all I was really TRYING to say!" You screwed up, you tried to slam Romney, and it blew up in your face. Now it's dripping with egg and you're trying to wipe it off.
Your example further amplifies your obtusity (made-up, yes, but if you're going to make stuff up then so can I). The statement "abortion is legal" is similarly erroneous. It is legal with numerous restrictions, and the truth is much narrower than that generic statement, just like the truth of the ruling is much narrower than "corporations are people."
And BTW, if I am looking to someone to encapsulate the opinion of the Supreme Court, Romney would not be that someone. His proficiency lies elsewhere.
Did that chair hit you in the head? I am trying to find some reasonable explanation for your obtusity.