t's worse than that. Bish got rid of Habeas Corpus after 800 years. Obama now reserves the Executive Privilege to detain indefinitely, those acquitted and exonerated!
Um.. Not 800 years. Lincoln got rid of it for a lot more people just 140 years ago. Almost the entire south was without it at one point in time.
The preception by the administration was that it was a legal manner.
Your sort of arm chair quarterbacking here and using the later presumption of not being legal to invalidate the entire idea of thinking it was legal at the time it was done. Let's see if I can put this in a car analogy, if you checked your blindspot and thought it was safe to change lanes only to find later the you missed a car and hit it when changing lanes, did you act maliciously and intentionally to hit the car or did you think you were being legal and safe but erred?
Absolutely not true. We have NO originals, and no true copies of the originals. Additionally, by the 3rd century CE it was such a mess that they had to do an overhaul - and even then, there have been a lot of forks.
This is simply not true and is indicative of your ignorance of the bible.
First, something that is still in practice today, is where the stories were scribed, studied, passed from person to person in groups and everyone knew the story inside and out so if one person started getting it wrong, others would correct them. This is primarily with the old testament and is still done by the Jewish today.
second, they didn't do an overhaul, they cleaned up transcription errors and consolidated the incomplete workings with the complete ones creating the king James version.
As for the lies - just check out the populations of the armies in the old testament - impossible, and even the rabbis today admit they are wild exaggerations.
What? Have you ever heard of Numerical hyperbole? It was/is a common thing to do and is especially prevalent in royal scriptures. The bible is ripe with hyperbole but that doesn't make it a lie, it makes it an exaggeration to communicate a point. It's like AL gore citing the Mann hockey stick graph in his movie after knowing that errors were discovered and it didn't look like a hockey stick upon correct so he used the old outdated one for effect. Did he lie in an inconvenient truth and global warming is just fiction or was he using hyperbole to visually illustrate a point?
You cite 12 people and claim truth because of that - there were thousands who believed a different faith at that time, and made lots of claims of being witness to various other "proofs"... like christianity, they had their popularity, then they fell by the wayside. Why do you settle for superstition, if not because you NEED to believe? And why do you NEED to believe? For most, it's a character flaw, for some, it's culture, for some it's a power trip, and for some (religious and political leaders) it's cynical posturing.
No, I don't claim it's true, I'm claiming that you have a pretty big hill to climb in proving it wasn't true, that these people made everything up. You simply saying you don't believe it happened doesn't address the people who supposedly witnessed it, preached about it, with nothing to gain but an agonizing death. Your entire premise seems to be "I don't believe it" and "they exaggerated about this so it's all false" and that doesn't seem to prove or disprove anything. It just shows that you don't believe it. If you don't believe in it, fine, do whatever, but don't attempt to force other to not believe when that's all you got. There is more evidence that the people who witnessed the stuff believed it was true then you have making it not true.
It's called "do unto others as they have done unto you"... part of game theory, which has proven that the best way to deal with liars is not to ignore them, because they take it as license, but to tell them that they are full of shit.
You have absolutely no proof that it is a load of shit or they are full of it. And yes, the evidence does point to they at least believe in what they were standing for. IT seems that your just doing a tit for tat because you have a problem with people who believe something you don't.
In other words, provide some PROOF that god exists, or admit that it's all based on believing what someone else said, and that tere is no more reason to believe them than to believe the UFO freaks, and those whoworshiped the Norse gods, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or "The Force". After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and nobody has offered any experiment that we can do to provide even the slightest justification of the existence of
No, you're missing the point. Society needs to be able to assign responsibilities to actions (and sometimes inaction, in the case of negligence). People do not necessarily need to be responsible for inanimate objects.
You simply cannot assign blame to an object. This isn't third grade and the ball didn't hurt you, the person who threw it did.
Where in our legal system can responsibility be assigned to an object that is not a person? Kids aren't even considered persons in most states and aren't allowed to enter into certain contracts or participate in certain activities. Our legal system requires a person to be responsible.
Right, it's "could be" and not "always" because people are not necessarily responsible for events that involve their property. They can be responsible regardless ownership. Ownership is not a particularly determinant factor in most cases.
Yes, they are. You have a duty to not let your property harm the property of others. IF you fail in that duty, you can be held liable unless a law exempts you like with most equine activities.
So yes, I could be held responsible for handing over the keys to a drunk person, knowing that they're going to drive. Whether I own the car they're going to drive is irrelevant. The question is whether I was negligent in permitting or encouraging a drunk person to drive.
You may be more then negligent, you may have acted maliciously and with intent. However, the point being is that a person is responsible and not the car or the keys or the tires, or the telephone pole that jumps out in front of him. In some states, simply leaving the keys in a reasonably accessible place can make you liable.
Yes, except that it's not the case that someone has to be legally responsible for all things that happen anyway. In lawsuits, there's often an attempt to establish who is responsible because that's what lawsuits are about. However, there are cases where no one is determined to be responsible, which (depending on the circumstances) may then be called "an act of God".
Yes, I already brought an act of god up. In those cases, the owners take responsibility for their own properties and suffer the loss. The owners are the responsible party. And don't take responsible to mean the person who caused the event, it's the person held to the results of it.
If an event is caused by human action, however, you still have to establish some kind of negligence or bad act. For example, if we got into a car accident with each other, it is possible that neither driver was negligent and so neither is held responsible for the damage and injuries resulting from the accident.
Actually, that is impossible in reality. It might have happened where no one driver is found to of been at fault because of lack of evidence, but the rules of the road cover pretty much everything that would cause an accident. However, if I was working for a company, and the situation came about as you described, then when you found out I was over worked and tired driving the car, you could sue the company because they had a duty to ensure I was a safe driver in an appropriate condition to drive. And yes, that is in the motor carrier laws.
But again, that whole discussion isn't really relevant to the question. You're saying you need some kind of legal construct to limit the liability owners have over the actions of the companies they own. And that's fine, I have no objection to that. But why does that legal construct need to create artificial "persons" who are granted an inalienable right to have financial influence over our government officials?
Because our legal system does not and can not assign blame to objects, it has to assign them to people and if the corporation isn't a separate person, then t
The AC doesn't need to provide a scanned copy of his Nobel Prize to point out that the parent was full of it.
Your right, the AC can just assassinate the character and qualifications of the person making the claims and never address the legitimacy of the claims at all. In fact, that is what he did. So here we have claims that run counter to the current global warming theory as expressed politically and skipping them altogether seems to be the most legitimate response to you and the AC. Gee, it's no wonder there are so many deniers out there when the claims are ignored and the messenger is shot.
Credibility is earned, not something you're born with.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then. But I see what you are saying, we can ignore what the guy claims because he doesn't meet your superimposed standards. In other words, what he says has no credibility because you found a way to diss the man instead of counter what he said. I'm not sure the logic is good, but if that is what it takes to keep your position legit, then by all means, run and gun it.
Climatologists have earned credibility by doing decades of peer reviewed research with a plethora of data.
Yep, and what is the official definition of climatologist, where can we find it, and what were these climatologist called before the position was created? Now I know I lack credibility because I havn't been spouting the same crap for decades, but please answer these questions instead of attempting to ignore them by assassinating my character.
Whereas the ostrich denies only have their fact-free ideology and glittering trivialities - like the canard that some ice sheets are thickening. Conveniently leaving out the fact that it's thinking due to increased precipitation - brought on by warmer temperatures.
Yes, it's the warmer temps causing it. And how much of that warmth is man made verses natural? Yea, the article posted set some pretty good facts into play and here you are discounting all of them because of something someone else said.
Like I said, lets start a religion and make these actions official.
One persistent problem for the ostriches is that even when they have something right, they're still wrong.
That's what I'm talking about. Even when they are right, you say they are wrong. And judging from your response and the AC who started it, they are wrong because of who they are not because their claims are right. Your parents must be proud of you. I mean being able to deny something that is right because you don't want it to upset your convenient world view. Yea, Advaita must be proud too.
In that case, *you* left it out of gear, which is negligent.
Your missing the point. Someone has to be responsible for their property. It can be you or someone else through no fault of your own. But it has to be someone not some thing. This is why a corp is considered a separate person. It can be responsible in and of itself.
Only if you're negligent in some way, and not simply because you're technically the owner of the car.
Are you only reading what you want to read and ignoring the rest? I already stated that with my examples of giving the car to an unlicensed or intoxicated driver or knowing the car would be used in the commission of a crime. I didn't say always, I said could be.
First of all, I can't imagine that holding up. Maybe if I provide the baseball bat to my neighbor specifically for the purpose of breaking the window, but just knowing he's going to be reckless doesn't put me on the hook. The fact of my owning the baseball doesn't make me any more responsible than if I didn't own the baseball.
This concept is used all the time to hold parent criminally liable for the actions of their kids. If you have reason to believe they will cause damage, then offering them the means to do so implicates you directly.
I think you're the one missing the point. You're trying to claim that owning something makes you responsible for whatever happens with it, and it simply doesn't. So that line of reasoning is debunked.
No, I'm trying to make the point that "someone" has to be responsible for what ever happens to it. It can be the owner, it can be the neighbor, but it is always someone (a person) and not the piece of property itself. Neither the ball or bat can be the responsible party when someone strikes the ball and it goes through the window causing damage.
This is more circular begging the question. Assuming that you need to limit the obligations and liabilities of owners, and assuming the only way to achieve that is to have corporations which are legally considered a "separate person" from the owner, then yes, we need each corporation to be considered "a person". If we don't assume what we're trying to argue from the outset, then the whole argument falls apart.
There is nothing circular about this other then the precondition of separating liabilities. The entire way it works is only because the corporation is a separate person able to answer for it's own actions. If you remove that, then someone has to be responsible for it and it would work out just like a partnership where all of the owners are/can be that person. The only way a corporation can shield non acting owners is by acting on it's own as a separate person. If you want the way corporations exist today to remain, they need to be treated as separate people in many aspects. Otherwise, your entire wealth can be taxed for liability for the companies actions simple because you own shared of stock in your retirement account.
And what none of this answers is, even if you want to have some way in which a corporation is technically/legally considered a "person", what is harmed by having it only be a "person" in a limited sense, and not granting it the right to contribute to political campaigns? That was the original question, after all.
Well first, that wasn't the original question. It was in the question but it wasn't the entire question.
Now corporations are highly limited as people and to what extent they can do things. But limiting them from donating to campaigns or political speech would stop them following their fiduciary duty to a large degree when political environments pose a threat or harm to them. You have to remember, a politician's duty is n
The idea has been discussed for many years now, including using submersible barges with pumps and stuff anchored in the water.
Seems like nothing new or novel here. I thought that you only have one year from discussion or implementation to file for a patent? If that's not the case, there is a lot of crap I have been discussing over the years that I should start locking down. Hell, even my capacitor charging laser light that super-heats freon in air conditioning system in order to recapture waist energy through a generator and make the process more efficient that I have been openly discussing for the last 5-8 years seems to be back on the table to lock down. And that's a relatively simple concept where the Freon is pumped through an expander on it's way back to the condenser coil which is heated by a small laser and then passed through a generator that can power the fans and blower motors so your only paying for electricity to power the pump.
Yes, dismissing claims you don't support for reasons other then the claims seems to be the logical path to take "when you can't invalidate the claims".
I have to offer kudos, you did assassinate this guys legitimacy pretty well. I mean an AC on a public internet forum with no reference to qualifications shooting the messenger instead of the message and then commenting on how much you respect the paper he wrote by saying it was to good to wipe your dog's ass. And you do all this with less legitimacy then a guy who actually put his name on a paper while using the same tactics that you just decried.
Yes, if we can assassinate the credibility of all deniers like this, we won't have to fix the science or follow/address the questions presented by the denier and we can have our global warming the way we want it regardless of any truths. Perhaps we can even start a religion out of it. Many people already act as if it is one and refuse to answer critiques that point out potential flaws in the theories. We could be more blind then the catholic church when it demanded the sun revolved around the earth. Hell, yea, this new science is awesome because it still resembles science but we don't have to be accurate. All hail the convinced at all costs.
No, if a car runs over someone or something, the person driving the car is the responsible party, and not the guy who owns it. Unless you're claiming that I can be charged for manslaughter if I lend my car to a friend and that person runs someone else over.
What if no one is in the car and you left it out of gear or if it is in a state of disrepair and pops out on it's own? No one would be driving it and you would still be held responsibly for it.
And yes, you can be charged with manslaughter for letting someone else drive your car in certain situations. These situations would include knowing the driver was either not licensed, intoxicated or somehow impaired, and knowing that the driver was going to use the car to do some illegal activity.
Or take another example: I lend the neighbor a baseball and a baseball bat. The neighbor then uses that equipment and ends up hitting the ball through a window. Am I liable because I own the equipment, or is the neighbor liable for choosing to play baseball right next to someone's house?
If you know the neighbor was going to use the bat to hit the ball through the window, yes, you could be liable. But I think your missing the point in these. In all cases mentioned, a person is there and liable or responsible for the actions. When a corporation is at fault, they need to be that person or the owners become personally liable.
Oh, so first it was just any random guy who caused someone to lose an investment in any way, and that person could be sued. Then it was an owner. Then it doesn't matter who the actors are. And now it's someone directing the company? And... someone could sue the person who directs some company if that company causes someone to lose an investment somewhere?
No, it doesn't matter who the actors are, the actors are not the concern outside of the degree of separation. IF the corporation isn't a separate person then it becomes no different then a partnership in which your actions directly influence the company and you then become potentially liable. I'm not sure why we are still at this part with the who does what, I explained that before.
So who am I in this situation? The directors? Great, so I'm facing civil and criminal liability? Or am I supposed to be the owner?
OK, read this slowly because you seems to be missing the context. When a corporation is a separate person, your actions as a owner who doesn't control the corporation are separate. When that separate person is removed, you now become the same as the directors and subject to the same liabilities. The entire point of treating a corporation as a separate person is to separate silent owners from the corporation and the actions of the corporation. Unless you are suggesting a change in naming only and leaving everything in place, once you remove the separate person, it becomes the same as a partnership and your actions as owner does present a liability/obligation to other investors.
So let me recap that just to make sure you are clear. With the separate person aspect, the directors and company itself is required to act in good faith. Without the separate person aspect, everyone involved, including owners are required to act in good faith.
Look, I understand the purpose of corporations is to limit the liability of the owners of the company, if that's the only point you're trying to make. That still doesn't make a corporation a person, nor is it a good reason to make a corporation a person legally.
No, you don't understand the purpose of a corporation. The purpose is to form a company structure that can act independent of the owners will and is always required to operate in good faith and with a fiduciary duty. That makes it a separate person and in the process shields and protects the owners who don't actively participat
I'm not necessarily against taking voting rights away because most convicts were likely non voters in the first place. However, there should be a way to get them back and donating time or money is still a pretty good and effective way to propel someone into office. In fact, influencing 20 other people to vote for candidate X is 20 times as powerful as your single vote.
As for immigrants and foreigners, no, I don't count them as citizens. Perhaps I was clear on that. The environment thing, I wasn't clear about either, what I meant was the political climate, not the actual environment.
It's probably my bad, I consider anyone subject to US laws and stuff to be the US citizens. To some extent, I would support legal immigrants having those same rights if they are hear for extended periods of time even without becoming a citizen. The illegal immigrants I would pose as the convict is still in jail. in jail their abilities are severely limited as should be illegal immigrants. Immigrants aren't necessarily otherwise entitled to vote either. This should be a good point of separation in which the excon or felons (and yes, at one point in time, misdemeanor possession of more or less harmless drugs was a felony) would otherwise be legally entitled to vote. Because they lost that privilege/right, shouldn't bar them from any participation in their government.
Sure, and I can stipulate that a corporation is capable of owning something and being responsible for the things that they own-- at least to a large extent.
None of that really indicates that they need to be considered a legal "person" with all the rights, privileges, and protections which people enjoy.
Your thinking two D or only two levels deep. The corporation needs someone to be responsible for it's own actions, in which could be the actions of something it owns. A car has tires, the car can't own the tires, the owner of the car does. If the car runs over someone or something with that tire, it's the owner of the car, not the car that has the tires who is the responsible party. A thing can't possess another thing, only a person in our legal system can. When corporations are autonomous from their owners who aren't directing it's actions, it can own something just as you can.
Well just to pick apart where you're going with this a little, you're not always entirely responsible for what happens with the things you own, right? I'm not necessarily liable if the car I own was involved in an accident. The car doesn't need to be granted legal personhood in order to avoid me getting charged with manslaughter if someone else, driving my car, runs someone over. There generally needs to be some kind of action or reckless inaction on the part of the owner. Or to backtrack to your earlier example:
The only way you are not liable or the responsible party of your possessions is if an act of god (legally speaking) or theft or if you were obeying the rules and someone else caused the event imposing liability. There is no needs to create a legal person of the car because there is already one there when you aren't liable. If someone steals your car, while you can still be held for damages it caused, the person who stole it was liable. If someone hits you while you are parked, then it's that person's fault and responsibility. If a flood comes by and sweeps your car into a neighbors house, it's an act of god and both of your assume responsibility for damage to your own possessions.
This is where the disconnect with a corporation comes into play. If the car was owned by a corporation, then the company becomes responsible for the car (assuming you had no part in the event), not you as a part owner of the company. When you remove the separate person, then it's like the tire doing damage, you are left holding the bag. Instead of running over something, imagine the conversation was driving through someone's front lawn and the tired peeled out a patch of grass as the damage.
You can't hold the ladder responsible for breaking, but you probably can't hold me responsible for simply owning a ladder which breaks, either. Offering it for service in an unsafe condition is another matter, and I might be able to be sued for that even if I don't own the ladder, right?
Well, yes, you are responsible for the ladder breaking. if you simply owned the ladder which breaks, then it would be either you who is hurt and your responsibility or the ladder would break without hurting someone and your responsibility or liability would be the cost of the ladder you are out (either from replacement or from not having a working ladder anymore). And yes, when you interact with other people, if the ladder was unsafe and you offered it to use, you could be held for any damages because you are the legal person with responsibility over it. Now imagine you owned a company and the ladder was yours by possession of the company. Now suppose some mid level manager offered the ladder to a labor employee and it breaks, the company is responsible and possibly the mid level manager, but because the company is a separate person, you as a silent owner are not held responsible beyond the value of your shares of the company (you don't forfeit anything but if the damage puts the company into bankruptcy, t
I'm not sure it makes sense to call it a "logic issue". You're asserting something as a premise, but that doesn't mean the issue is one of "logic". I think "entities are owned by people" is logically problematic since companies can own things too, and companies are obviously not people. Therefore, things which are not people can own things.
It's a logic issue because if you aren't responsible for your property, then who is. Our courts don't allow a ladder to be responsible for breaking and someone falling, it's the person who owns the ladder and offered it for service in an unsafe condition. Now if you aren't responsible for your property, then who is. In the case of a corporation, it would be the corporation. That's the logic.
It's more of a legal logic then a>b>c and not b>c>a>
Errr... why? If I support cap and trade laws, then anyone whose investment would be lessened in value as a result of cap and trade laws would be able to sue me? But that's prevented by corporations being "people"? I think you need to expand that out a little before it starts making some kind of sense.
Corporations are either separate people from the owners able to act in their own best interest or not. If you take the ability for them to act away, then it will fall on the owners. As a corporation is just a construct, it takes people to cause action with it. The separation that comes from a corporation being a separate person relieves owners not participating in it's running and direction from liability for it's actions. When you remove that ability to act on it's own and independent from the owners, then it becomes nothing more then a dog or a car you own in which you are responsible for any damage it causes.
How this effect you politically is that when you become responsible for it's actions, then it's just like partial ownership in a car or a dog, you can't sell it or junk it or put it to sleep without the consent of the other owners and you can't do so to their detriment without their approval/consent. So by removing the separate person aspect of a corporation, if you do something not in the best interest of the company which causes the investment to decrease in value, other partial owners will have a claim against your actions. So if you support cap and trade and it causes profits to drop by 30% and property owned by the corporation to lose 50% value, your actions created a claim I cold exert for my investment loses.
Investors sue corporations to act within a certain way or boundaries all the time when they see it as detrimental to their investments.
I am no lawyer but I was taught that owners are shielded with corporations if I remember properly from my finance and accounting classes. This is why owners are willing to pay double taxation for owning a corporation rather than a partnership or sole proprietor.
You are only shielded outside of your own actions. If you participate in or direct whatever happens to cause the liability, you are not shielded. If you are the owner and working at your corp but didn't direct the action resulting in liability, you also run the risk of not being completely shielded from vicarious liability.
Where the shielding is beneficial is when you either need to separate piles of income in order to work taxes and credit ratings. If you don't participate in the business outside of ownership or investment, you are shielded from everything outside the value of the company.
You cannot create a business, incorporate it, then direct an employee to dump toxic sludge into the city water supply and walk away scott free. Your actions surpass the corporation's separation because they are your actions and no corporate shielding can remove that.
If corporations are people then they need to be punished when breaking the law. Instead they are treated as persons for bribery.. cough campaign contributions.. but when they break the law then they are corporations and not people.
Corporations are punished for breaking the law. What your seeing is more of a limitation in our legal system where you have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt which makes it appear as they don't get punished. However, corporations get fined regularly for breaking laws and those fines are pretty hefty. The people working inside the corporations also get fined and in some cases, jail time. However, it is hard to show that the actions of a low level worker went past a low level managers orders in which the fines tend to be a little more lenient for the corporations. But make no mistake, if the CEO can be found to have been the person who order the law to be broken, they will get fined as well as the corp and everyone else involved and in some cases, face jail time just the same.
The courts need to do something about this soon and the current climate in Washington today might be it. People are still really angry at AIG and are sick and tired of corruption and massive deficit spending from Washington.
It's not the courts place to make law. But I think if you look harder, you will see that corporations are held to the law.
Well first, I'm not sure why you can't allow such a legal construct without talking about the corporation as a "person".
It's actually a logic issue. Entities are owned by people. The ground you stand on is owned by someone, the air is owned by the government and so on to some extent. A corporation is also owned by it acts independent of the owners and is responsible for it's own actions. Lets say your dog gets lose and bites someone, you are the owner and responsible for it's actions even though it made it's own actions. When you place a degree of separation, someone has to be responsible for the actions so when it becomes the corporation, it is it's own person.
The term is more figuratively but us used to illustrate the separation of actions. You don't know why I can't not call it a person, so explain how it is responsible for it's own actions independent of the owners (like children when they reach a certain age) if not in the terms of a person.
But also, none of that really addresses the question of the negative consequences of saying, "Corporations are not people and are not necessarily entitled to all of the same human rights as people, and therefore are not entitled to contribute to political campaigns."
Well, yes it does address that. If they aren't separated and responsible for their own actions, then all liability will fall back to owners who didn't take any part in the action or direction of the action. You also have problems with conflicts of interest in your own political policies and so on. Those are all negatives that would result if a corporation wasn't autonomous and a separate person.
I guess maybe you simply don't understand the idea behind a corporation being a separate entity from the owners.
I think it makes sense to make a legal distinction of being able to assign legal responsibility for an action to either the employee working for a company, the company itself, or the investor funding the company. I think all of that can be handled, however, without trying to grant inalienable human rights to the corporation.
Well, no, it can't. At least not without ripping out a lot of the laws in place to ensure investors that actions would be taken in good faith. You see, if the corporation wasn't able to act on it's own behalf separate from the owners and investors, then if you supported some environmental restriction like say the cap and trade laws which would increase costs and make the corporation less profitable, then I as an investor could sue you for the losses of your political stance in which you poisoned my investment by intentionally attempting to harm it.
You see, without that degree of separation and the ability for the corporation to act in it's own interest, then anything you do to decrease the value of the investment for others can become a liability to you. You would be forced to align your interest into the best interest of the company and justify them when someone challenged it. Now when the company acts as it's own person, then you and it are separated and don't have that connected burden.
Now you can change the name from a person to legal entity or whatever and keep the same rules, but it wouldn't change the concept. If a corporation isn't allowed to act in it's own interest, then you, the owner, even if by just one share, will have to act in it's best interest.
The premise is more that they are separate people.
Corporations are nothing more the collections of people acting in liberty and enterprise in a collective way. Being a separate person means that the actions of the corporation which is not the result of the investors actions do not travel back to the investors. However, it doesn't absolve anyone who acted on behalf of the corporation or within it. So if the owner of a business incorporates, and still runs the business, they are not shielded from all liability because of the incorporation, but their silent partners will be to the extent beyond their investments.
If we were to get rid of the person aspect, then it's likely that you could be sued for Exxon's actions simply because you have their stock in your retirement account and took no part in whatever action happened. This question goes deeper then the ability to have speech on the laws and policies that would effect a corporation. This is because it is illegal to destroy or damage your corporation and it's ability to profit when others are invested in it too. The danger here is that certain political policies have the potential to do harm to some companies and if a corporate entity isn't separate, then your voting and political support could be interpreted to be harming or damaging the profitability of the corporation and you may have to support something you don't agree with to escape both civil and criminal repercussions.
neither can ex-cons and felons in most states. Should they be able to donate to the legalize MJ candidates or donate to the candidate that is claiming to build new parks and clean up the environment?
Ability to vote does not determine the impact of the candidates running for office. Donating, even if it is labor or vocalized support should not be removed from anyone who is subject to the political processes, laws, and environment under each, even if they aren't allowed to vote themselves.
Actually, he probably with me and is shocked because no one is bitching about the administration, no bid contracts, millions of dollars being spent and payoffs to those responsible for the contract.
I guess maybe if haliburton or cheney was a name in the story, everyone would be pissed.
Oh? My belongs AREN'T searched whenever I try to fly? My itinerary ISN'T being sent to the government ahead of time?
No, your belongings aren't searched everytime you fly, only when you fly commercial. And unless you are over 65 years old, your belongings were always subject to search, it was just a matter of doing it. As for your itinerary, I'm not exactly sure what you are claiming there, you don't need to check anything in with the government unless you are leaving the country.
Um, you mean like warrentless wiretapping? There is a court where a warrant can be gotten after the fact... the new tools do away with the warrant completely. The "adapting to different scenarios" you gloss over directly violate the constitution.
Yep, just like warrantless wire tapping and it's been legal for the types of intercepts that were happening since before it became illegal to tap a phone without a warrant. You should spend more time understanding the TSP and the authority it claims to operate under and maintains before making yourself look like another dumbass.
And no, the warrant was not done away with completely. That's just a fucktard battle cry of people attempting to get elected or their guy elected with no basis in reality at all. So you frequently talk with terrorist on international calls? That's the only fucking way the warrantless wiretapping would effect you.
As for the constitution, the constitution never dealt with phone calls and privacy until 1968, and even then the courts on multiple occasions left the door open for national security in which the TSP was being operated.
It sounds to me that you are pretty pissed of over your own ignorance. You have everything wrong compared to the reality of it.
Sure it is; you claimed that merely saying something is the same as doing, and you continue to state that. You claim that you could tell 10 people to go after my parents, and they would... with nothing other than you stating thats what you wanted done.
No I didn't. I said that saying something to get someone else to do an action is the same as doing it. I said if I convinced 10 people to go after your parent's, I am just as liable as those who I convinced to act on my behalf. Free speech doesn't protect anyone from those consequences. Again, pay attention.
By stating that someone is reasonable because they said "oh i wish someone would get rid of bob" you remove some of the responsiblity from the nut that went and killed bob... all because you don't think someone should be able to say something like that.
No you don't. It's called a conspiracy and they both get punished because they are both responsible for the actions that killed bob. Also, you would have to say a little more then a generic I wish someone would get rid of bob.
No, you didn't "get me there." You changed the details of your story slightly to make your point, but its no longer the same point. You've now introduced cohersion where there was none before. Its called a strawman arguement. Might want to look it up. No, it's the same point with the same details and moral- when someone does something on your behalf and at your direction, you are liable for those actions just the same as the person who did it. Just because you want to close your eyes to the details doesn't mean it's a straw man either. You need to pay fucking attention better.
No, its because I'm tired of people trying to say "OMG what if this happened then this happened and that should SCARE YOU." You're an idiot who doesn't have a point trying to use emotion to outweight logic. Your desired result was "oh, well I wouldn't want anything happen to my parents so I guess he's right." See, it has nothing to do with the validity of your argument so much as it does my feelings for my parents. I'm not fucked in
You can't argue that your beliefs are true because you believe your beliefs are true... and that is exactly what the bible does... it's a total failure of critical thinking.
The bible is little more then a history book with some wild claims. Seeking the truth of it is irrelevant because you have no claim to anything not being true. When the stories were told and included in the scriptures, the people who witnessed it believed it to be true, it was passed down meticulously to other generations, and they believed it to be true- at least from a historical perspective, and you not wanting to believe anything doesn't make any statement for it or against it just the same.
They convinced themselves - same as nutcases always have throughout history.
So 12 people convinced themselves by walking around and performing miracles and fulfilling certain prophecies in earlier writings that one of them was a god or the son of god and would be sacrificed to cleanse the sins of man and offer salvation and love of a god who typically demanded obedience by coming back from the grave and telling these people on multiple occasions of the hardship, torture, and deaths they will experience in preaching what they convinced themselves of during their lives experiences as well as with other people who were touched by the same experiences that what they believed was true and worth suffering the fates they did because of.
Ok, at some point, anyone would have to ask themselves, did this miracle really happen? Did this guy that I saw die on the cross who was stabbed by a roman spear, really come back and talk to us all? Did he really revive the dead, heal the crippled, give sight to the blind, or was that some sort of scam that you participated in. And you position is that after participating in all those scams, after making up the story of resurrection, after being told of the suffering they would be exposed to, they were so convinced that they endured imprisonment, torture, the death of their families and eventually their own all why continuing to confess the crap they didn't participate in. Yea, how unlikely is that? And yes, this is different then Jamestown, Waco, and others who thought they were part of something already existing, Jesus and the disciples created all this out of nothing where those others interpreted other works.
And that is my beef with religion - it's all in your mind. There is no proof that the bible is true, and a LOT of proof that it's false.
Actually, there is a lot of proof that events in the bible are true to some extent. Cities actually existed, wars actually happened, people went to certain places with certain claims, there is quite a but of proof of that. There is very little proof that something is false in the bible, and most of that is only interpretation because of the lack of supporting evidence. As for the god part of the bible, there is proof that people believed in a certain way but no proof that way was wrong. All of what you claim is proof against God or a god is nothing more then the lack of evidence that you can find.
As for the "witness" of the apostles, they had a vested interest in convincing themselves that it was true - you missed my point entirely. They were religious nuts. Jesus was the worst of the bunch - he believed that God would save him on the cross - the motherfucker found out he was wrong in his beliefs - hence "my god, why hast thou forsaken me?"
Lol... you see, here is where you lack the understanding of the entire story. Jesus knew he was supposed to die on the cross, he just didn't know why. And yes, he was preaching to the convict next to him until his death.
People who have a need to believe something will continue to believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, and will fabricate evidence to
It would probably be easier to ignore the human waste stream and just force farmers who are being taxed for their cow farts to build lagoons to catch the animal wastes and pump that to the processor plant.
Slashdot Mirror
Um.. Not 800 years. Lincoln got rid of it for a lot more people just 140 years ago. Almost the entire south was without it at one point in time.
The preception by the administration was that it was a legal manner.
Your sort of arm chair quarterbacking here and using the later presumption of not being legal to invalidate the entire idea of thinking it was legal at the time it was done. Let's see if I can put this in a car analogy, if you checked your blindspot and thought it was safe to change lanes only to find later the you missed a car and hit it when changing lanes, did you act maliciously and intentionally to hit the car or did you think you were being legal and safe but erred?
This is simply not true and is indicative of your ignorance of the bible.
First, something that is still in practice today, is where the stories were scribed, studied, passed from person to person in groups and everyone knew the story inside and out so if one person started getting it wrong, others would correct them. This is primarily with the old testament and is still done by the Jewish today.
second, they didn't do an overhaul, they cleaned up transcription errors and consolidated the incomplete workings with the complete ones creating the king James version.
What? Have you ever heard of Numerical hyperbole? It was/is a common thing to do and is especially prevalent in royal scriptures. The bible is ripe with hyperbole but that doesn't make it a lie, it makes it an exaggeration to communicate a point. It's like AL gore citing the Mann hockey stick graph in his movie after knowing that errors were discovered and it didn't look like a hockey stick upon correct so he used the old outdated one for effect. Did he lie in an inconvenient truth and global warming is just fiction or was he using hyperbole to visually illustrate a point?
No, I don't claim it's true, I'm claiming that you have a pretty big hill to climb in proving it wasn't true, that these people made everything up. You simply saying you don't believe it happened doesn't address the people who supposedly witnessed it, preached about it, with nothing to gain but an agonizing death. Your entire premise seems to be "I don't believe it" and "they exaggerated about this so it's all false" and that doesn't seem to prove or disprove anything. It just shows that you don't believe it. If you don't believe in it, fine, do whatever, but don't attempt to force other to not believe when that's all you got. There is more evidence that the people who witnessed the stuff believed it was true then you have making it not true.
You have absolutely no proof that it is a load of shit or they are full of it. And yes, the evidence does point to they at least believe in what they were standing for. IT seems that your just doing a tit for tat because you have a problem with people who believe something you don't.
You simply cannot assign blame to an object. This isn't third grade and the ball didn't hurt you, the person who threw it did.
Where in our legal system can responsibility be assigned to an object that is not a person? Kids aren't even considered persons in most states and aren't allowed to enter into certain contracts or participate in certain activities. Our legal system requires a person to be responsible.
Yes, they are. You have a duty to not let your property harm the property of others. IF you fail in that duty, you can be held liable unless a law exempts you like with most equine activities.
You may be more then negligent, you may have acted maliciously and with intent. However, the point being is that a person is responsible and not the car or the keys or the tires, or the telephone pole that jumps out in front of him. In some states, simply leaving the keys in a reasonably accessible place can make you liable.
Yes, I already brought an act of god up. In those cases, the owners take responsibility for their own properties and suffer the loss. The owners are the responsible party. And don't take responsible to mean the person who caused the event, it's the person held to the results of it.
Actually, that is impossible in reality. It might have happened where no one driver is found to of been at fault because of lack of evidence, but the rules of the road cover pretty much everything that would cause an accident. However, if I was working for a company, and the situation came about as you described, then when you found out I was over worked and tired driving the car, you could sue the company because they had a duty to ensure I was a safe driver in an appropriate condition to drive. And yes, that is in the motor carrier laws.
Because our legal system does not and can not assign blame to objects, it has to assign them to people and if the corporation isn't a separate person, then t
Your right, the AC can just assassinate the character and qualifications of the person making the claims and never address the legitimacy of the claims at all. In fact, that is what he did. So here we have claims that run counter to the current global warming theory as expressed politically and skipping them altogether seems to be the most legitimate response to you and the AC. Gee, it's no wonder there are so many deniers out there when the claims are ignored and the messenger is shot.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then. But I see what you are saying, we can ignore what the guy claims because he doesn't meet your superimposed standards. In other words, what he says has no credibility because you found a way to diss the man instead of counter what he said. I'm not sure the logic is good, but if that is what it takes to keep your position legit, then by all means, run and gun it.
Yep, and what is the official definition of climatologist, where can we find it, and what were these climatologist called before the position was created? Now I know I lack credibility because I havn't been spouting the same crap for decades, but please answer these questions instead of attempting to ignore them by assassinating my character.
Yes, it's the warmer temps causing it. And how much of that warmth is man made verses natural? Yea, the article posted set some pretty good facts into play and here you are discounting all of them because of something someone else said.
Like I said, lets start a religion and make these actions official.
That's what I'm talking about. Even when they are right, you say they are wrong. And judging from your response and the AC who started it, they are wrong because of who they are not because their claims are right. Your parents must be proud of you. I mean being able to deny something that is right because you don't want it to upset your convenient world view. Yea, Advaita must be proud too.
Many lives have been ruined by doing tequila shots within a physical mile of a church.
Your missing the point. Someone has to be responsible for their property. It can be you or someone else through no fault of your own. But it has to be someone not some thing. This is why a corp is considered a separate person. It can be responsible in and of itself.
Are you only reading what you want to read and ignoring the rest? I already stated that with my examples of giving the car to an unlicensed or intoxicated driver or knowing the car would be used in the commission of a crime. I didn't say always, I said could be.
This concept is used all the time to hold parent criminally liable for the actions of their kids. If you have reason to believe they will cause damage, then offering them the means to do so implicates you directly.
No, I'm trying to make the point that "someone" has to be responsible for what ever happens to it. It can be the owner, it can be the neighbor, but it is always someone (a person) and not the piece of property itself. Neither the ball or bat can be the responsible party when someone strikes the ball and it goes through the window causing damage.
There is nothing circular about this other then the precondition of separating liabilities. The entire way it works is only because the corporation is a separate person able to answer for it's own actions. If you remove that, then someone has to be responsible for it and it would work out just like a partnership where all of the owners are/can be that person. The only way a corporation can shield non acting owners is by acting on it's own as a separate person. If you want the way corporations exist today to remain, they need to be treated as separate people in many aspects. Otherwise, your entire wealth can be taxed for liability for the companies actions simple because you own shared of stock in your retirement account.
Well first, that wasn't the original question. It was in the question but it wasn't the entire question.
Now corporations are highly limited as people and to what extent they can do things. But limiting them from donating to campaigns or political speech would stop them following their fiduciary duty to a large degree when political environments pose a threat or harm to them. You have to remember, a politician's duty is n
Don't you remember, the guy counting Bush's WMDs actually got the total right 0.
I'm not sure how/why he is patenting this.
The idea has been discussed for many years now, including using submersible barges with pumps and stuff anchored in the water.
Seems like nothing new or novel here. I thought that you only have one year from discussion or implementation to file for a patent? If that's not the case, there is a lot of crap I have been discussing over the years that I should start locking down. Hell, even my capacitor charging laser light that super-heats freon in air conditioning system in order to recapture waist energy through a generator and make the process more efficient that I have been openly discussing for the last 5-8 years seems to be back on the table to lock down. And that's a relatively simple concept where the Freon is pumped through an expander on it's way back to the condenser coil which is heated by a small laser and then passed through a generator that can power the fans and blower motors so your only paying for electricity to power the pump.
Yes, dismissing claims you don't support for reasons other then the claims seems to be the logical path to take "when you can't invalidate the claims".
I have to offer kudos, you did assassinate this guys legitimacy pretty well. I mean an AC on a public internet forum with no reference to qualifications shooting the messenger instead of the message and then commenting on how much you respect the paper he wrote by saying it was to good to wipe your dog's ass. And you do all this with less legitimacy then a guy who actually put his name on a paper while using the same tactics that you just decried.
Yes, if we can assassinate the credibility of all deniers like this, we won't have to fix the science or follow/address the questions presented by the denier and we can have our global warming the way we want it regardless of any truths. Perhaps we can even start a religion out of it. Many people already act as if it is one and refuse to answer critiques that point out potential flaws in the theories. We could be more blind then the catholic church when it demanded the sun revolved around the earth. Hell, yea, this new science is awesome because it still resembles science but we don't have to be accurate. All hail the convinced at all costs.
What if no one is in the car and you left it out of gear or if it is in a state of disrepair and pops out on it's own? No one would be driving it and you would still be held responsibly for it.
And yes, you can be charged with manslaughter for letting someone else drive your car in certain situations. These situations would include knowing the driver was either not licensed, intoxicated or somehow impaired, and knowing that the driver was going to use the car to do some illegal activity.
If you know the neighbor was going to use the bat to hit the ball through the window, yes, you could be liable. But I think your missing the point in these. In all cases mentioned, a person is there and liable or responsible for the actions. When a corporation is at fault, they need to be that person or the owners become personally liable.
No, it doesn't matter who the actors are, the actors are not the concern outside of the degree of separation. IF the corporation isn't a separate person then it becomes no different then a partnership in which your actions directly influence the company and you then become potentially liable. I'm not sure why we are still at this part with the who does what, I explained that before.
OK, read this slowly because you seems to be missing the context. When a corporation is a separate person, your actions as a owner who doesn't control the corporation are separate. When that separate person is removed, you now become the same as the directors and subject to the same liabilities. The entire point of treating a corporation as a separate person is to separate silent owners from the corporation and the actions of the corporation. Unless you are suggesting a change in naming only and leaving everything in place, once you remove the separate person, it becomes the same as a partnership and your actions as owner does present a liability/obligation to other investors.
So let me recap that just to make sure you are clear. With the separate person aspect, the directors and company itself is required to act in good faith. Without the separate person aspect, everyone involved, including owners are required to act in good faith.
No, you don't understand the purpose of a corporation. The purpose is to form a company structure that can act independent of the owners will and is always required to operate in good faith and with a fiduciary duty. That makes it a separate person and in the process shields and protects the owners who don't actively participat
I'm not necessarily against taking voting rights away because most convicts were likely non voters in the first place. However, there should be a way to get them back and donating time or money is still a pretty good and effective way to propel someone into office. In fact, influencing 20 other people to vote for candidate X is 20 times as powerful as your single vote.
As for immigrants and foreigners, no, I don't count them as citizens. Perhaps I was clear on that. The environment thing, I wasn't clear about either, what I meant was the political climate, not the actual environment.
It's probably my bad, I consider anyone subject to US laws and stuff to be the US citizens. To some extent, I would support legal immigrants having those same rights if they are hear for extended periods of time even without becoming a citizen. The illegal immigrants I would pose as the convict is still in jail. in jail their abilities are severely limited as should be illegal immigrants. Immigrants aren't necessarily otherwise entitled to vote either. This should be a good point of separation in which the excon or felons (and yes, at one point in time, misdemeanor possession of more or less harmless drugs was a felony) would otherwise be legally entitled to vote. Because they lost that privilege/right, shouldn't bar them from any participation in their government.
Your thinking two D or only two levels deep. The corporation needs someone to be responsible for it's own actions, in which could be the actions of something it owns. A car has tires, the car can't own the tires, the owner of the car does. If the car runs over someone or something with that tire, it's the owner of the car, not the car that has the tires who is the responsible party. A thing can't possess another thing, only a person in our legal system can. When corporations are autonomous from their owners who aren't directing it's actions, it can own something just as you can.
The only way you are not liable or the responsible party of your possessions is if an act of god (legally speaking) or theft or if you were obeying the rules and someone else caused the event imposing liability. There is no needs to create a legal person of the car because there is already one there when you aren't liable. If someone steals your car, while you can still be held for damages it caused, the person who stole it was liable. If someone hits you while you are parked, then it's that person's fault and responsibility. If a flood comes by and sweeps your car into a neighbors house, it's an act of god and both of your assume responsibility for damage to your own possessions.
This is where the disconnect with a corporation comes into play. If the car was owned by a corporation, then the company becomes responsible for the car (assuming you had no part in the event), not you as a part owner of the company. When you remove the separate person, then it's like the tire doing damage, you are left holding the bag. Instead of running over something, imagine the conversation was driving through someone's front lawn and the tired peeled out a patch of grass as the damage.
Well, yes, you are responsible for the ladder breaking. if you simply owned the ladder which breaks, then it would be either you who is hurt and your responsibility or the ladder would break without hurting someone and your responsibility or liability would be the cost of the ladder you are out (either from replacement or from not having a working ladder anymore). And yes, when you interact with other people, if the ladder was unsafe and you offered it to use, you could be held for any damages because you are the legal person with responsibility over it. Now imagine you owned a company and the ladder was yours by possession of the company. Now suppose some mid level manager offered the ladder to a labor employee and it breaks, the company is responsible and possibly the mid level manager, but because the company is a separate person, you as a silent owner are not held responsible beyond the value of your shares of the company (you don't forfeit anything but if the damage puts the company into bankruptcy, t
It's a logic issue because if you aren't responsible for your property, then who is. Our courts don't allow a ladder to be responsible for breaking and someone falling, it's the person who owns the ladder and offered it for service in an unsafe condition. Now if you aren't responsible for your property, then who is. In the case of a corporation, it would be the corporation. That's the logic.
It's more of a legal logic then a>b>c and not b>c>a>
Corporations are either separate people from the owners able to act in their own best interest or not. If you take the ability for them to act away, then it will fall on the owners. As a corporation is just a construct, it takes people to cause action with it. The separation that comes from a corporation being a separate person relieves owners not participating in it's running and direction from liability for it's actions. When you remove that ability to act on it's own and independent from the owners, then it becomes nothing more then a dog or a car you own in which you are responsible for any damage it causes.
How this effect you politically is that when you become responsible for it's actions, then it's just like partial ownership in a car or a dog, you can't sell it or junk it or put it to sleep without the consent of the other owners and you can't do so to their detriment without their approval/consent. So by removing the separate person aspect of a corporation, if you do something not in the best interest of the company which causes the investment to decrease in value, other partial owners will have a claim against your actions. So if you support cap and trade and it causes profits to drop by 30% and property owned by the corporation to lose 50% value, your actions created a claim I cold exert for my investment loses.
Investors sue corporations to act within a certain way or boundaries all the time when they see it as detrimental to their investments.
You are only shielded outside of your own actions. If you participate in or direct whatever happens to cause the liability, you are not shielded. If you are the owner and working at your corp but didn't direct the action resulting in liability, you also run the risk of not being completely shielded from vicarious liability.
Where the shielding is beneficial is when you either need to separate piles of income in order to work taxes and credit ratings. If you don't participate in the business outside of ownership or investment, you are shielded from everything outside the value of the company.
You cannot create a business, incorporate it, then direct an employee to dump toxic sludge into the city water supply and walk away scott free. Your actions surpass the corporation's separation because they are your actions and no corporate shielding can remove that.
Corporations are punished for breaking the law. What your seeing is more of a limitation in our legal system where you have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt which makes it appear as they don't get punished. However, corporations get fined regularly for breaking laws and those fines are pretty hefty. The people working inside the corporations also get fined and in some cases, jail time. However, it is hard to show that the actions of a low level worker went past a low level managers orders in which the fines tend to be a little more lenient for the corporations. But make no mistake, if the CEO can be found to have been the person who order the law to be broken, they will get fined as well as the corp and everyone else involved and in some cases, face jail time just the same.
It's not the courts place to make law. But I think if you look harder, you will see that corporations are held to the law.
It's actually a logic issue. Entities are owned by people. The ground you stand on is owned by someone, the air is owned by the government and so on to some extent. A corporation is also owned by it acts independent of the owners and is responsible for it's own actions. Lets say your dog gets lose and bites someone, you are the owner and responsible for it's actions even though it made it's own actions. When you place a degree of separation, someone has to be responsible for the actions so when it becomes the corporation, it is it's own person.
The term is more figuratively but us used to illustrate the separation of actions. You don't know why I can't not call it a person, so explain how it is responsible for it's own actions independent of the owners (like children when they reach a certain age) if not in the terms of a person.
Well, yes it does address that. If they aren't separated and responsible for their own actions, then all liability will fall back to owners who didn't take any part in the action or direction of the action. You also have problems with conflicts of interest in your own political policies and so on. Those are all negatives that would result if a corporation wasn't autonomous and a separate person.
I guess maybe you simply don't understand the idea behind a corporation being a separate entity from the owners.
Well, no, it can't. At least not without ripping out a lot of the laws in place to ensure investors that actions would be taken in good faith. You see, if the corporation wasn't able to act on it's own behalf separate from the owners and investors, then if you supported some environmental restriction like say the cap and trade laws which would increase costs and make the corporation less profitable, then I as an investor could sue you for the losses of your political stance in which you poisoned my investment by intentionally attempting to harm it.
You see, without that degree of separation and the ability for the corporation to act in it's own interest, then anything you do to decrease the value of the investment for others can become a liability to you. You would be forced to align your interest into the best interest of the company and justify them when someone challenged it. Now when the company acts as it's own person, then you and it are separated and don't have that connected burden.
Now you can change the name from a person to legal entity or whatever and keep the same rules, but it wouldn't change the concept. If a corporation isn't allowed to act in it's own interest, then you, the owner, even if by just one share, will have to act in it's best interest.
The premise is more that they are separate people.
Corporations are nothing more the collections of people acting in liberty and enterprise in a collective way. Being a separate person means that the actions of the corporation which is not the result of the investors actions do not travel back to the investors. However, it doesn't absolve anyone who acted on behalf of the corporation or within it. So if the owner of a business incorporates, and still runs the business, they are not shielded from all liability because of the incorporation, but their silent partners will be to the extent beyond their investments.
If we were to get rid of the person aspect, then it's likely that you could be sued for Exxon's actions simply because you have their stock in your retirement account and took no part in whatever action happened. This question goes deeper then the ability to have speech on the laws and policies that would effect a corporation. This is because it is illegal to destroy or damage your corporation and it's ability to profit when others are invested in it too. The danger here is that certain political policies have the potential to do harm to some companies and if a corporate entity isn't separate, then your voting and political support could be interpreted to be harming or damaging the profitability of the corporation and you may have to support something you don't agree with to escape both civil and criminal repercussions.
neither can ex-cons and felons in most states. Should they be able to donate to the legalize MJ candidates or donate to the candidate that is claiming to build new parks and clean up the environment?
Ability to vote does not determine the impact of the candidates running for office. Donating, even if it is labor or vocalized support should not be removed from anyone who is subject to the political processes, laws, and environment under each, even if they aren't allowed to vote themselves.
Actually, he probably with me and is shocked because no one is bitching about the administration, no bid contracts, millions of dollars being spent and payoffs to those responsible for the contract.
I guess maybe if haliburton or cheney was a name in the story, everyone would be pissed.
No, your belongings aren't searched everytime you fly, only when you fly commercial. And unless you are over 65 years old, your belongings were always subject to search, it was just a matter of doing it. As for your itinerary, I'm not exactly sure what you are claiming there, you don't need to check anything in with the government unless you are leaving the country.
Yep, just like warrantless wire tapping and it's been legal for the types of intercepts that were happening since before it became illegal to tap a phone without a warrant. You should spend more time understanding the TSP and the authority it claims to operate under and maintains before making yourself look like another dumbass.
And no, the warrant was not done away with completely. That's just a fucktard battle cry of people attempting to get elected or their guy elected with no basis in reality at all. So you frequently talk with terrorist on international calls? That's the only fucking way the warrantless wiretapping would effect you.
As for the constitution, the constitution never dealt with phone calls and privacy until 1968, and even then the courts on multiple occasions left the door open for national security in which the TSP was being operated.
It sounds to me that you are pretty pissed of over your own ignorance. You have everything wrong compared to the reality of it.
No I didn't. I said that saying something to get someone else to do an action is the same as doing it. I said if I convinced 10 people to go after your parent's, I am just as liable as those who I convinced to act on my behalf. Free speech doesn't protect anyone from those consequences. Again, pay attention.
No you don't. It's called a conspiracy and they both get punished because they are both responsible for the actions that killed bob. Also, you would have to say a little more then a generic I wish someone would get rid of bob.
To many Klingon's?
The bible is little more then a history book with some wild claims. Seeking the truth of it is irrelevant because you have no claim to anything not being true. When the stories were told and included in the scriptures, the people who witnessed it believed it to be true, it was passed down meticulously to other generations, and they believed it to be true- at least from a historical perspective, and you not wanting to believe anything doesn't make any statement for it or against it just the same.
So 12 people convinced themselves by walking around and performing miracles and fulfilling certain prophecies in earlier writings that one of them was a god or the son of god and would be sacrificed to cleanse the sins of man and offer salvation and love of a god who typically demanded obedience by coming back from the grave and telling these people on multiple occasions of the hardship, torture, and deaths they will experience in preaching what they convinced themselves of during their lives experiences as well as with other people who were touched by the same experiences that what they believed was true and worth suffering the fates they did because of.
Ok, at some point, anyone would have to ask themselves, did this miracle really happen? Did this guy that I saw die on the cross who was stabbed by a roman spear, really come back and talk to us all? Did he really revive the dead, heal the crippled, give sight to the blind, or was that some sort of scam that you participated in. And you position is that after participating in all those scams, after making up the story of resurrection, after being told of the suffering they would be exposed to, they were so convinced that they endured imprisonment, torture, the death of their families and eventually their own all why continuing to confess the crap they didn't participate in. Yea, how unlikely is that? And yes, this is different then Jamestown, Waco, and others who thought they were part of something already existing, Jesus and the disciples created all this out of nothing where those others interpreted other works.
Actually, there is a lot of proof that events in the bible are true to some extent. Cities actually existed, wars actually happened, people went to certain places with certain claims, there is quite a but of proof of that. There is very little proof that something is false in the bible, and most of that is only interpretation because of the lack of supporting evidence. As for the god part of the bible, there is proof that people believed in a certain way but no proof that way was wrong. All of what you claim is proof against God or a god is nothing more then the lack of evidence that you can find.
Lol... you see, here is where you lack the understanding of the entire story. Jesus knew he was supposed to die on the cross, he just didn't know why. And yes, he was preaching to the convict next to him until his death.
It would probably be easier to ignore the human waste stream and just force farmers who are being taxed for their cow farts to build lagoons to catch the animal wastes and pump that to the processor plant.
You guys should get together and form your own country. You can call it the Uri-nation.
You must be at a good company. I know of several companies which a degree in physical education is enough to secure a mid level management position.
All those stories about the pointy hair bosses that could surf the interweb if you didn't show them how to didn't come from nowhere.