Only companies have armies of lawyers whose only job is to MAKE SURE THESE ACTIVITIES ARE LEGAL. Seriously. When your company is worth billions, sometimes you do things to protect that business. At the very least, these lawyers massively failed and should all, each and every one of them, be fired. Along with the executives who signed off on these travesties.
And don't you think it is a huge problem if the companies genuinely didn't know if it was legal or not? Both from a good governance standpoint, in that the people of the united states don't know they very laws they are accountable to, and from the standpoint that the companies did something that quite frankly should never have passed a smell test WITHOUT KNOWING if it was legal or not? Again, that's just no way to run multi-billion dollar business at the very least.
And you are right, whomever released Joe the Plumber's records needs to be fired at the very least and prosecuted under any applicable laws. Period.
And that's the point here - everyone needs to be accountable to the same laws in this country, that's the whole foundation of the United States of America; that includes all citizens, all companies, all government representatives of all types and, yes, the president and his cronies.
I have no idea why people can't see Obama for who he is. This includes the right wing idiots like Rush and Hannity who see him as Karl Marx incarnate. He isn't; he's just the next fascist to get elected.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Well, other than their CEO being thrown in jail for "insider trading" and the company being blacklisted from all fed contracts, not much of anything. I'm not sure what's worse - asking companies to take part in blatantly illegal programs or punishing them when they do the right thing and refuse.
It already is/was/will continue to be unambiguously illegal, there is no need for this bill!
And I strongly disagree with your statement that this bill is strictly retroactive; it may be so according to the text, but this bill sets an important precedent - don't worry about doing something blatantly illegal for uncle sam, we've got your back.
You know what, from the perspective of the RIAA, I steal McMuffins all the time. Every weekend, I make scrambled eggs, sausage, and cheese on English muffins, thereby producing identical copies of McMuffins and depriving the McDonald's down the street of my $2. I know, I know, I really shouldn't admit to being such a criminal on a public website...
Slashdot Mirror
Only companies have armies of lawyers whose only job is to MAKE SURE THESE ACTIVITIES ARE LEGAL. Seriously. When your company is worth billions, sometimes you do things to protect that business. At the very least, these lawyers massively failed and should all, each and every one of them, be fired. Along with the executives who signed off on these travesties. And don't you think it is a huge problem if the companies genuinely didn't know if it was legal or not? Both from a good governance standpoint, in that the people of the united states don't know they very laws they are accountable to, and from the standpoint that the companies did something that quite frankly should never have passed a smell test WITHOUT KNOWING if it was legal or not? Again, that's just no way to run multi-billion dollar business at the very least. And you are right, whomever released Joe the Plumber's records needs to be fired at the very least and prosecuted under any applicable laws. Period. And that's the point here - everyone needs to be accountable to the same laws in this country, that's the whole foundation of the United States of America; that includes all citizens, all companies, all government representatives of all types and, yes, the president and his cronies.
I have no idea why people can't see Obama for who he is. This includes the right wing idiots like Rush and Hannity who see him as Karl Marx incarnate. He isn't; he's just the next fascist to get elected. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Well, other than their CEO being thrown in jail for "insider trading" and the company being blacklisted from all fed contracts, not much of anything. I'm not sure what's worse - asking companies to take part in blatantly illegal programs or punishing them when they do the right thing and refuse.
That's a difference without distinction. If he'll vote yes for it, he for all practical purposes supports it and becomes part of the problem.
It already is/was/will continue to be unambiguously illegal, there is no need for this bill! And I strongly disagree with your statement that this bill is strictly retroactive; it may be so according to the text, but this bill sets an important precedent - don't worry about doing something blatantly illegal for uncle sam, we've got your back.
You know what, from the perspective of the RIAA, I steal McMuffins all the time. Every weekend, I make scrambled eggs, sausage, and cheese on English muffins, thereby producing identical copies of McMuffins and depriving the McDonald's down the street of my $2. I know, I know, I really shouldn't admit to being such a criminal on a public website...