You and the parent both fail to realise that the laws trump your religions. If their is a conflict between the 2 the law always takes precedent. Claiming your invisible sky-daddy wants or doesn't want something is irrelevant.
You're just so full of wrong here.
First, you mean precedence, not precedent. Second, the SCOTUS just saw it my way.
I can't say for certain how he or she became a moron but the idiocy he or she is displaying is how I know that he or she is a moron.
Five years ago you would never think a corporation had a right to unlimited political spending in the name of the right of free speech of a corporation.
I argued that exact position before McCain-Feingold became law. If each of the people who own a corporation has the right to free speech, it's unthinkable that when they work together they somehow lose that right.
Last year you would not have thought Hobby Lobby could prevent it's employees from getting their Federally guaranteed earned health benefits in the name of a corporation's religious inclination.
1. No one is prevented from getting anything. Every Hobby Lobby employee who can get a doctor to prescribe birth control pills can still get them. Hobby Lobby just won't be forced to pay for it. 2. Yes, I not only thought but I hoped that would be the case when the issue was decided by the SCOTUS.
It really is just a few months at this rate before they vote.
Yeah, I see why you posted anonymously. If you had used your name, in a year, I would have waited to see you post and then replied to remind you what a fucking moron you are.
It's not going to happen. Ever.
What's to stop it?
The fact that to be able to have the right to vote, one must be a citizen and in order to be a citizen one must be a human being.
Chick-fil-A were attacked because they were openly bigoted.
Were there any documented cases of Chic-Fil-A refusing to serve someone because they were gay? Refusing to hire someone because they were gay? Attacking someone because they were gay?
Corporations are "persons" not "people" and moreover, only "Citizens" can vote. Corporations are not now, have never been and shall never be "citizens".
Because CocaCola is not a citizen. Illegal aliens do not have the right to vote in November either. (We all know that many of them will anyway, but they have no right to do so.)
but the corporation is not a person.
Yes it is. Being a "person" under the law doesn't require one to be a human being. There is still a class of human beings who are not "persons" under the laws of the USA. You need to understand the underlying premise here.
The Constitution refers to "Persons", "The People" and "Citizens". These are three distinct types of entity under the law. I am a Citizen and by virtue of that, I am a person and one of the people.
Corporations are absolutely NOT people.
No, they are not "people". They are "persons". There is a legal distinction and an important one.
If a dog bites you, can you sue the dog? No. Why? Because the dog is not a person. Can you sue a corporation? Yes. Why? Because it's a legal "person". "Incorporate" means to "bring together into one body".
Rather than worry about how to restrict money flowing into elections (and dealing with "first amendment" issues) we should prohibit all political donations and give all candidates a set amount to work with to reach their constituents.
ALL candidates? Does that include candidates who have no chance to win? The American Nazi Party for example? Why in the fuck should they get as much money as the "established" parties or even the third parties that are on the fringes but still have the power to influence. Like the Libertarian, Green and Constitution Parties?
Your quick fixes lack foresight. I don't mean that as an insult It seems to me that you're genuinely concerned and motivated to fix the problem but when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you're supposed to do is stop digging. These "solutions" make the problem worse.
Other people here have already pointed these issues out separately but I'd like to combine them.
I don't think that anyone can honestly deny how NBC's portrayal of Sarah Palin had a tremendous impact on how the 2008 campaign ended. To this day, a lot of people still confuse Tina Fey's awesome satire for actual Palin statements. Bill Maher, in addition to his million dollar donation to a PAC for Obama's benefit, has constantly given media exposure to politicians who represent his point of view.
Do you have a plan to limit the effect that non-advertising content has on elections?
Or do you end up with a system which is heavily skewed to the wishes of a handful of wealthy people -- which is pretty much what you have now.
That's a popular canard but it's not always true. Intensity beats extensity, every time.
This is an example of what I mean, Eric Cantor just lost his primary to a no-name Tea Partier that he outspent 27 to 1.
In local, state and national elections the ability to motivate people is what wins elections.
In 2008, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani out-fundraised McCain by 7 million and 4 million dollars respectively and they both lost.
The Democrats were even more interesting on this front. First when he beat the Clinton machine in the 2008 primary. His campaign employed analytics on a level that hadn't been seen before, especially for a political nobody who was barely on the national stage for 4 years. Hillary out-funraised Barack by over 11 million dollars and he soundly beat her.
Obama out-spent McCain by almost 400 million dollars and had it not been for his running mate, McCain would have faced an embarrassing loss in the general election. Beyond that money, Obama had the organization to win.
Obama out-spent Romney by 250 million dollars. Had the election taken place a year later, his victory wouldn't have been assured. Despite a quarter of a billion dollar advantage, the incumbent nearly lost.
The thread that unites all of these cases is that in every instance, the candidate with the most energetic following won. Money helps but it's only the losers who complain when the game that they chose to play doesn't turn out their way.
Look at what's going on around you. It's slowly but surely coming away from the realm of Alex Jones and the like but it's obvious that law enforcement is gearing up for something.
There is something that they expect to happen in the near future that makes them think they'll need weapons of war.
Of course not. Very little of existance exists at the 100 percent certainty.
Precisely. You can't be sure nor can you prove that anti-vaccination parents are the cause of your case of Pertussis. It's just as possible that someone sneaked across the border and infected you.
Pertussis is an especially difficult case because the immunization threshold for herd immunity is so high. It's entirely possible that you were infected by someone who wasn't anti-vaccination but simply had some other health problem that prevented vaccination.
Now people know they must get vaccines like that renewed. Before that, the lack of people with the disease meant we didn't.
So, you somehow absolve yourself for your ignorance while condemning them for theirs.
We're talking about disease, not toxins.
Let me refresh your memory. Thankfully Slashdot doesn't let people edit or delete their posts.
they have no right to kill me - none.
You don't get to set the terms of the discussion. You also don't get to determine what other people can and can not do to themselves. Everyone who takes part in the amenities of modern life is helping to kill everyone else. The consequences of our actions apply to everyone that we have even the most incidental connection to. If you don't like that, you can always be a hermit.
I happen to believe that the smart and responsible thing to do is to vaccinate yourself and your children but it's not my place to demand that anyone else does it.
I was vaccinated and I have vaccinated my children.
Slashdot Mirror
Chic-Fil-A was donating money to organizations opposed to marriage equality
NEWSPEAK ALERT!
No, Dan Cathy donated money to organizations that worked against redefining marriage to fit a certain political agenda.
LK
You and the parent both fail to realise that the laws trump your religions. If their is a conflict between the 2 the law always takes precedent. Claiming your invisible sky-daddy wants or doesn't want something is irrelevant.
You're just so full of wrong here.
First, you mean precedence, not precedent.
Second, the SCOTUS just saw it my way.
So, you can go suck a bag full of dicks.
LK
how is the poster a moron?
I can't say for certain how he or she became a moron but the idiocy he or she is displaying is how I know that he or she is a moron.
Five years ago you would never think a corporation had a right to unlimited political spending in the name of the right of free speech of a corporation.
I argued that exact position before McCain-Feingold became law. If each of the people who own a corporation has the right to free speech, it's unthinkable that when they work together they somehow lose that right.
Last year you would not have thought Hobby Lobby could prevent it's employees from getting their Federally guaranteed earned health benefits in the name of a corporation's religious inclination.
1. No one is prevented from getting anything. Every Hobby Lobby employee who can get a doctor to prescribe birth control pills can still get them. Hobby Lobby just won't be forced to pay for it.
2. Yes, I not only thought but I hoped that would be the case when the issue was decided by the SCOTUS.
It really is just a few months at this rate before they vote.
Yeah, I see why you posted anonymously. If you had used your name, in a year, I would have waited to see you post and then replied to remind you what a fucking moron you are.
It's not going to happen. Ever.
What's to stop it?
The fact that to be able to have the right to vote, one must be a citizen and in order to be a citizen one must be a human being.
LK
Pregnancy: it takes two to happen, but it's always the woman's fault.
And the resultant expense is always the man's responsibility.
LK
Right, because running a corporation is a religious practice. Give us this day our daily board meeting.
Every part of your day can be a religious practice.
For some people, running their business in accordance with their faith is a part of their religious practices.
LK
Superstition trumps health care for women.
Stop with the butthurt.
Pay for your own Plan B. This decision doesn't take that away.
LK
Chick-fil-A were attacked because they were openly bigoted.
Were there any documented cases of Chic-Fil-A refusing to serve someone because they were gay? Refusing to hire someone because they were gay? Attacking someone because they were gay?
LK
No, you fucking moron.
Corporations are "persons" not "people" and moreover, only "Citizens" can vote. Corporations are not now, have never been and shall never be "citizens".
LK
I wonder when the big man at 1600 Pennsylvania is going to fix this gender disparity?
Shut your oppressive mouth. Cock-man! Despoiler!
Everyone knows that it's only discrimination to treat people differently when women aren't happy with the disparity.
LK
put their religion before the constitution. Shocking.
I guess you missed that part about "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
LK
+1 Fucking Right!
These "vouchers" that you are describing sound an awful lot like...money.
LK
Corporations can be the targets of legal action precisely because they are persons under the law.
LK
You can't run ads that mention political candidates or parties 2 weeks before an election.
How about political editorials?
Who will decide if "news" coverage is impartial or biased towards or against any candidate or party?
Congratulations, you found out that sometimes, there's a trade-off in a decision that you make, and a perfect solution doesn't exist.
Sure it does. Let people say whatever they want to say and in the marketplace of ideas, the most compelling argument wins.
LK
CocaCola does not get a vote in November.
Because CocaCola is not a citizen. Illegal aliens do not have the right to vote in November either. (We all know that many of them will anyway, but they have no right to do so.)
but the corporation is not a person.
Yes it is. Being a "person" under the law doesn't require one to be a human being. There is still a class of human beings who are not "persons" under the laws of the USA. You need to understand the underlying premise here.
The Constitution refers to "Persons", "The People" and "Citizens". These are three distinct types of entity under the law. I am a Citizen and by virtue of that, I am a person and one of the people.
Corporations are absolutely NOT people.
No, they are not "people". They are "persons". There is a legal distinction and an important one.
If a dog bites you, can you sue the dog? No. Why? Because the dog is not a person.
Can you sue a corporation? Yes. Why? Because it's a legal "person". "Incorporate" means to "bring together into one body".
LK
Rather than worry about how to restrict money flowing into elections (and dealing with "first amendment" issues) we should prohibit all political donations and give all candidates a set amount to work with to reach their constituents.
ALL candidates? Does that include candidates who have no chance to win? The American Nazi Party for example? Why in the fuck should they get as much money as the "established" parties or even the third parties that are on the fringes but still have the power to influence. Like the Libertarian, Green and Constitution Parties?
Your quick fixes lack foresight. I don't mean that as an insult It seems to me that you're genuinely concerned and motivated to fix the problem but when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you're supposed to do is stop digging. These "solutions" make the problem worse.
LK
I can try to convince a woman to sleep with me all I want. If I am influential, she will. But if I pay her for it, it's illegal.
If you pay a woman to have sex with you, in most places, that's illegal.
If you pay other people to tell this woman why she should have sex with you, that's not illegal.
Buying votes is illegal. Paying people to tell others to vote the way you want them to should not be illegal.
LK
Do you have a problem with Michael Bloomberg giving $50,000,000 to promote anti-gun politicians?
LK
Other people here have already pointed these issues out separately but I'd like to combine them.
I don't think that anyone can honestly deny how NBC's portrayal of Sarah Palin had a tremendous impact on how the 2008 campaign ended. To this day, a lot of people still confuse Tina Fey's awesome satire for actual Palin statements. Bill Maher, in addition to his million dollar donation to a PAC for Obama's benefit, has constantly given media exposure to politicians who represent his point of view.
Do you have a plan to limit the effect that non-advertising content has on elections?
LK
Or do you end up with a system which is heavily skewed to the wishes of a handful of wealthy people -- which is pretty much what you have now.
That's a popular canard but it's not always true. Intensity beats extensity, every time.
This is an example of what I mean, Eric Cantor just lost his primary to a no-name Tea Partier that he outspent 27 to 1.
In local, state and national elections the ability to motivate people is what wins elections.
In 2008, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani out-fundraised McCain by 7 million and 4 million dollars respectively and they both lost.
The Democrats were even more interesting on this front. First when he beat the Clinton machine in the 2008 primary. His campaign employed analytics on a level that hadn't been seen before, especially for a political nobody who was barely on the national stage for 4 years. Hillary out-funraised Barack by over 11 million dollars and he soundly beat her.
Obama out-spent McCain by almost 400 million dollars and had it not been for his running mate, McCain would have faced an embarrassing loss in the general election. Beyond that money, Obama had the organization to win.
Obama out-spent Romney by 250 million dollars. Had the election taken place a year later, his victory wouldn't have been assured. Despite a quarter of a billion dollar advantage, the incumbent nearly lost.
The thread that unites all of these cases is that in every instance, the candidate with the most energetic following won. Money helps but it's only the losers who complain when the game that they chose to play doesn't turn out their way.
LK
I'm a Libertarian
OK. Fair enough.
I want liberty from government AND business.
Then, you're not really a Libertarian. Your association with any business is purely voluntary, absent any government coercion.
If the government didn't have so much power, there'd be no incentive for businesses to subvert it for their own goals.
LK
Technically, our current system is "voluntary" as well.
See what happens if you don't volunteer to pay.
LK
Look at what's going on around you. It's slowly but surely coming away from the realm of Alex Jones and the like but it's obvious that law enforcement is gearing up for something.
There is something that they expect to happen in the near future that makes them think they'll need weapons of war.
LK
I like to play devil's advocate and to point out hypocrisy.
LK
Of course not. Very little of existance exists at the 100 percent certainty.
Precisely. You can't be sure nor can you prove that anti-vaccination parents are the cause of your case of Pertussis. It's just as possible that someone sneaked across the border and infected you.
Pertussis is an especially difficult case because the immunization threshold for herd immunity is so high. It's entirely possible that you were infected by someone who wasn't anti-vaccination but simply had some other health problem that prevented vaccination.
Now people know they must get vaccines like that renewed. Before that, the lack of people with the disease meant we didn't.
So, you somehow absolve yourself for your ignorance while condemning them for theirs.
We're talking about disease, not toxins.
Let me refresh your memory. Thankfully Slashdot doesn't let people edit or delete their posts.
they have no right to kill me - none.
You don't get to set the terms of the discussion. You also don't get to determine what other people can and can not do to themselves. Everyone who takes part in the amenities of modern life is helping to kill everyone else. The consequences of our actions apply to everyone that we have even the most incidental connection to. If you don't like that, you can always be a hermit.
I happen to believe that the smart and responsible thing to do is to vaccinate yourself and your children but it's not my place to demand that anyone else does it.
I was vaccinated and I have vaccinated my children.