when they add a menu bar. Until then, I have ZERO interest in Chrome. I'm not trolling. I'm completely serious. Removing a standard UI component "just because" is an absolute deal breaker for me.
Something's been troubling me recently about the whole "corporations are people" thing. If corporations are people, what's to prevent corporations from running for public office? Suppose a corporation was founded in the US at least 35 years ago, could that corporation run for President? It's the logical (and frightening) conclusion to the "corporations are people" argument. How long until the companies stop merely buying candidates and instead BECOME the candidates?
You've fallen victim to propaganda.
There are many people who use the term "corporations are people" because it's absurd, the desire is to create a backlash against a strawman. Corporations are not "people". Corporations are "persons". There's an enormous difference.
I'll explain a few things.
The constitution references three types of being with rights.
Person
The People
Citizen(s)
Some of us belong to all three categories.
A person can be a living human being or a corporate person. Corporations are "persons" under the law, not people.
Only a human being can be a citizen. Corporations are not and can not be citizens.
The people are all of the citizens of the country, collectively and individually. This includes corporations, individual human beings as well as groups of corporations and human beings.
A requirement for for holding a constitutionally defined office is citizenship. One can not be a Senator, a Representative or the President unless one is a citizen. To be a citizen, one must be a human being.
Have you ever noticed that no one has ever sued the dog that bit him? If a car's brakes fail and you're struck, you don't sue the car. You sue the owner and/or the manufacturer. Same reason.
Corporate personhood isn't controversial or dangerous in any way. In fact, it's the very reason for incorporation. To "incorporate" is to "bring together into one (legal)body".
Non-persons can not be the object of legal proceedings. Non-persons can not own property. Non-persons do not have legal responsibilities.
What would the point of forming a corporation be if it weren't a separate being?
Yes, All spending bills must originate in the house but when there is a Republican house and a Democrat president, any attempt to reign in spending is cast by the Democrats as obstructionism and a willing media parrots that narrative until the public demands that the spending continues unabated.
It's funny how a Democratic house with a Republican president doesn't face the same media pressure.
My argument was facetious. It would be no more about making abortion rare than "assault weapons" bans, "Universal Background Checks" and gun registration are about preventing gun violence.
The true purpose of tracking everyone who had an abortion would be so that they could be prosecuted if and when the political winds change enough to make it possible, just like those gun control schemes are about hassling,harassing and tracking legitimate gun owners until the political winds allow for banning and confiscation.
Why that condition? Do you honestly believe that the moment the general populace is disarmed, armed government officials will start shooting people left right and center? That every civil liberty you have will be trampled underfoot?
I don't think that anyone suspect *that* scenario to play out but it's a bad idea to give the government a monopoly on force. The level of that government's corruption has a proportional relationship with the danger.
Slashdot Mirror
Regardless of what some advocacy organization says, when the vote is put to the people more often than not the bans pass.
LK
No he said "I want to pass a law that prevents a judge from forcing this state to redefine marriage."
LK
This is literally the same argument racists used a few decades ago to argue against letting black and white people marry.
Would you please stop this "gay is the new black" nonsense. It's offensive.
LK
when they add a menu bar. Until then, I have ZERO interest in Chrome.
I'm not trolling. I'm completely serious. Removing a standard UI component "just because" is an absolute deal breaker for me.
LK
I think I misunderstood the point you were making.
Basically, raising minimum wage has always preceded a spike in unemployment.
LK
The copyright belongs to the photographer not the "model".
LK
How about pseudoscience like "forcing people to pay more for something won't make them buy less of it" (higher minimum wage)?
History bears this out. It's not pseudoscience. It's economics 101.
LK
It's not simply belief. Witches exist. I know some.
That's not to say that they have any kind of supernatural powers but they follow the Wiccan religion.
Tighten up your claims, please.
LK
It's not defamation of character if what you say is true.
Basically, if you're not photoshopping someone's head onto another body, revenge porn is not defamation.
LK
It's not bigotry to say "No, your relationship with your partner is not the same thing as a marriage and we will not recognize it as such."
LK
Would you please stop with this "gay is the new black" bullshit.
It's offensive.
LK
Joe McCarthy would be proud.
So would Martin Luther King.
"My father did not take a bullet for same-sex marriage" - Bernice King
LK
Don't worry. After 6 PM, the people with jobs get home from work and start balancing things out.
LK
I am already a member.
LK
If you're so civilized, why are you having such problems with people shooting each other?
LK
What makes him think that he has the right to decide that for me?
LK
Bruce,
Why do you act in such an abrasive and hostile manner when you discuss social issues about which you have opinions?
LK
Something's been troubling me recently about the whole "corporations are people" thing. If corporations are people, what's to prevent corporations from running for public office? Suppose a corporation was founded in the US at least 35 years ago, could that corporation run for President? It's the logical (and frightening) conclusion to the "corporations are people" argument. How long until the companies stop merely buying candidates and instead BECOME the candidates?
You've fallen victim to propaganda.
There are many people who use the term "corporations are people" because it's absurd, the desire is to create a backlash against a strawman. Corporations are not "people". Corporations are "persons". There's an enormous difference.
I'll explain a few things.
The constitution references three types of being with rights.
Some of us belong to all three categories.
A person can be a living human being or a corporate person. Corporations are "persons" under the law, not people.
Only a human being can be a citizen. Corporations are not and can not be citizens.
The people are all of the citizens of the country, collectively and individually. This includes corporations, individual human beings as well as groups of corporations and human beings.
A requirement for for holding a constitutionally defined office is citizenship. One can not be a Senator, a Representative or the President unless one is a citizen. To be a citizen, one must be a human being.
Have you ever noticed that no one has ever sued the dog that bit him? If a car's brakes fail and you're struck, you don't sue the car. You sue the owner and/or the manufacturer. Same reason.
Corporate personhood isn't controversial or dangerous in any way. In fact, it's the very reason for incorporation. To "incorporate" is to "bring together into one (legal)body".
Non-persons can not be the object of legal proceedings. Non-persons can not own property. Non-persons do not have legal responsibilities.
What would the point of forming a corporation be if it weren't a separate being?
LK
She calls US paranoid for thinking that the government would ever trample our rights.
LK
Yes, All spending bills must originate in the house but when there is a Republican house and a Democrat president, any attempt to reign in spending is cast by the Democrats as obstructionism and a willing media parrots that narrative until the public demands that the spending continues unabated.
It's funny how a Democratic house with a Republican president doesn't face the same media pressure.
LK
You're missing the point.
My argument was facetious. It would be no more about making abortion rare than "assault weapons" bans, "Universal Background Checks" and gun registration are about preventing gun violence.
The true purpose of tracking everyone who had an abortion would be so that they could be prosecuted if and when the political winds change enough to make it possible, just like those gun control schemes are about hassling,harassing and tracking legitimate gun owners until the political winds allow for banning and confiscation.
LK
Ebay also had the added leverage of being able to freeze people's assets for 180 days through PayPal.
People were less likely to press the issue when PayPal could lock them out of their operating capital for 6 months.
LK
You don't know much about the process do you?
Please don't take that as an insult, I didn't mean it as one. I'll ask a few questions to illustrate my point.
1)Which form?
2)Police have access to NCIC, not NICS so how would they run a NICS check?
3)Which form?
LK
Why have they been buying millions of rounds of hollow point ammunition?
Correction: Billions
LK
Why that condition? Do you honestly believe that the moment the general populace is disarmed, armed government officials will start shooting people left right and center? That every civil liberty you have will be trampled underfoot?
I don't think that anyone suspect *that* scenario to play out but it's a bad idea to give the government a monopoly on force. The level of that government's corruption has a proportional relationship with the danger.
LK