I was right there with you when you rightly critisized the parent of living in a sad insular world where his viewpoints and prejudices go unchallenged. You followed it up with a wonderful suggestion that he should "Try being open-minded, it's amazing."
Then you wrote:
Also thank you for helping to substantiate my general thesis that liberal stopped meaning open-minded long ago.
Since when were sealing your prejudices a part of being open-minded? How is that not being insular? Sure, you technically "listen" to an opposing viewpoint, but then you pre-invalidate with prejudice.
Lastly, you just end up cementing liberals prejudices that conservatives are hypocrits, disgracing the good name of consistent and open-minded conservatives.
Unfortunately, on the internet it's also pretty easy to get the idea that sex with animals and with "women" with male genitilia are commonplace. They're also likely to get the idea that only women that look like young teenage girls are really desirable and that they should have as many sexual partners as physically possible at one time.
I'll give you your argument that porn promotes the teen body, but it will teach kids that sex with animals is commonplace?
Are you kidding me? I remember joking about beastiality when I was 10 with other classmates in my little Christian school. Nobody takes beastiality seriously. It's always been a tool to gross out your friends, or an insult to throw around.
Will it verify its existance to a kid? Sure.
Will they think it's normal sexual behavior? Are you kidding me?
I've been downloading porn from BBS's since I was 13. I'm 27 now. That means I've been "desensitizing" myself to online porn for 15 YEARS, and so have a lot of my friends (whom I introduced to online porn back in the BBS days)
I've been living with my wife for almost 5 years and we have a wonderful sexual relationship. I understand that she wants affection more times than not, while I want imagery more times than not. The solution? We compromise. We're both average looking and while I have absolutely NO complexes about my body, my wife shares the problem most women have over their self-image, which I attribute to Hollywood and the fashion industry.
Come to think of it:
If you look at what porn is selling today, you will note that the body images promoted by the porn industry is A LOT more diverse than Hollywood and the fashion industry. You have MILF's, Grannies, Fatties, Blacks, Asians, Latinos, Crackwhores, Girls-next-door, Butch Lesbos, Big titties, small titties, big asses, bone racks, hairy bushes, shaved bushes, trans-sexuals, nerdy girls, ugly girls, YOU NAME IT!
LET FACE IT: It is Hollywood and the fashion industry and "Reality Shows" giving people makeovers who are selling the unrealistic body images. They convince people their bodies are horrible and sexless to set people up to buy their products and services, which will magically make them sexy and appealing again.
If the porn industry is guilty of ANYTHING these days, it's poor story and character development. As someone who has been desensitized to porn, I would really love to see producers take a risk and develop REALLY GOOD MOVIES with GREAT character development and a lot of sexual explicit scenes. I also hate the fact that sexually active women get pegged as dumb sluts when I know SMART GIRLS LOVE TO FUCK.
Piracy is the biggest killer app of DSL/Cable modems.
First, you should note the listed telecom providers do not have thier money tied up in the content industry unlike AOL, Cablevision, Comcast, etc.
The RBOC's are losing a lot of business to wireless, cable companies, VOIP and cable companies bundling entertainment (TV, Video on Demand), VOIP with thier cable modem services.
The best way RBOC's like Verizon can compete is to sell DSL connections that users can use to download music and movies off Kazaa. Doing this does a couple of things:
1. It devalues their competitors bundled products (music/movies on demand). 2. They indirectly add similar value to their own service cheaper than their competitors.
Intel and other hardware companies have different motivations. They want to make the killer hardware that allows users to download/archive/playback free content whenever they want.
It's a big war between the content companies and the technology companies, and the technology companies have a MUCH bigger bankroll than the content companies.
You're right. I wasn't replying to you. I was replying to the guy pretending to be you and claimed it was more than one job.
What's wrong with obese black women? I think you're a racist.
I don't think there's anything wrong with it, you can bet your ass a good many people believe see them as their inferiors.
You can believe I'm a racist all you want, just like I can believe (and with good conviction) that you couldn't get the point if you fell on a bed of needles.
Seriously, I don't really think you're that stupid, rather I'm more inclined to believe you were just being dishonest by intentionally presenting asserting a falicous conclusion.
If you want to blatently lie and present misleading arguments to try and win your argument, then I'd like to forwarn you that I will not let you get away with any bullshit....but since you're not the guy pretending to be you, I really couldn't give a shit.
Native Americans still have access to the "property" we are renting and all rights and priviledges we do, aside from their own land that we have no rights to.
What you're talking about is the ability purchase the property we are renting. Yes, Native Americans can purchase this land they same way we can purchase it, but try to remember:
You can only purchase the land if the current owner is willing to sell the land.
Think about it. The natives have been tricked, robbed, and killed from their land. Do you think they're going to want to sell it off after all that???
Now they could just exercise their rights and refuse to sell thier land, but having been tricked into selling their land for beeds for so long, you can bet they want extra protection by now.
Especially after schemes that including giving the chief and counsel nice little kickbacks. So, in order to keep the white man from tricking them again, what do you think they did?
They opted to make giving their land away VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE, which is well within their rights as property owners. (Especially if the government agrees.)
They still have access to welfare, can vote, are considered citizens AND collect rent.
Just like any other citizen who rents thier land or wins a land claim. You do know that white people can file land claims too, right? (If they have a valid claim.)
If you could convince the government to sign a treaty where you are semi-sovereign and don't have to pay taxes, you would expect the government to hold up it's end of the bargain, right?
I am still tired of carrying around someone else's guilt.
Again, this has nothing to do with retributions or guilt. It's about property rights and upholding the principles of contract law by holding parties responsible for the contracts they sign.
Look, I'm sorry you feel tired of carrying around someone else's guily. I personally don't feel that way.
If my company had to fire me because they lost a lawsuit where they were in the wrong, I would blame my company, not the other party who was wrong.
Let me sum this up for you:
Your government has been financially obligating to ALL SORTS of debt you didn't agree to since before you were born. So why single out the commitments they made (and broke) to the Native Americans?
If you're seriously going to complain about being in debt to the government's actions then I'd like to direct your attention to the following:
Did you agree to:
* Establish Social Security, Medicare?
* Commit to Federal Highway, Defense spending?
* Farm Subsidies, Universal Welfare?
* and borrowing trillions of dollars from China to pay for all of these?
Now if you believe that governments shouldn't be able to commit its citizens to these obligations, then I'll honor and respect your beliefs.
BUT, if you believe our government has the right to commit its citizens, then I think you need to explain why you're singling out our government's commitments to the Native Americans.
Now maybe my perspective is skewed because it would be easier for me to justify compensation for ancesteral pain and suffering than it is to justify STILL paying for "LAND CLAIMS AND BROKEN TREATIES". If it comes down to broken contracts, we should have had this resolved 100 years ago.
Pardon me if I come off condescending, but it isn't all that uncommon for a land claim to be settled in a way that the stolen land is perpetually rented, because the damages are perpetual.
Think of it this way: You either give back the land, or you pay rent.
PS, I might as well admit that my wife is a Canadian North American Native and my mother-in-law is a top lands manager (Awarded 1st Lands Manager of the Year for all of Canada).
That explains why she had to pay for her education and only received $2 a year from an OLD settlement. (Canadians got a shittier deal.)
If I've learned anything from talking to my mother-in-law, I've learned the politics and legal matters involved are not very poorly understood by the majority of people for a number of reasons.
My point was: Why are you singling out Native American welfare recipients?
Secondly, If you ARE going to give someone a helping hand, isn't giving money to help build a telecommunications infrastructure one of the good ways? Isn't giving them an incentive to get an education a good way?
THEY AREN'T GETTING FREE INTERNET. They still have to pay $30-$50 a month to use the service, so what's the big deal?
The federal government gave the regional bells BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS of dollars to help build OUR telecommunications infrastructure. So why are you singling out this little venture?
Your so vague, which is usually an indicator that someone is full of shit.
Tell me, if you haven't been hired for a couple of jobs because your white why do you:
1. Mention only the ONE scenario which you actually did get the job. 2. Failed to mention the plurality of your discrimination?
Quit pretending to be a victim. Any discrimination you've experience doesn't come close to the prejudice and discrimination that poor minorities have to deal with......and don't try telling me people aren't discriminating against these days. Most people are discriminated against these days, especially ugly people, and GOD FORBID if you're an ugly fat black woman who speaks like a black person.
I know plenty of fellow white people who aren't technically racists (because they believe some minorities are good), but can't seem to kick the racial prejudice and can't even fathom their inherant non-racial prejudice.
Are Enron's employees responsible for the actions of the executives?
This is a terrible analogy, which probably explains why you're so confused, so here's a better one.
If your company was to lose a patent infringement case and the judgement was to pay 25% royalties indefinitely, your company may be forced to reduce your salary by 25%.
Are employees responsible for the wrong doing of thier company's? NO.
Can employees suffer from the wrong doing of their company. YES.
It's sad, but that's the way things have to be or corporate thieves would always be hiding behind their employees to escape prosecution.
When will it be over for us?
In many cases it is. A lot of treaty and land claim settlements ended up as a one-time payouts that were put into funds, while other settlements were payed out indefinitely. For example my wife (there, I let my bias slip out) gets a whopping $2 a year that she can use to help her pay her student loans, and she's 100% blood quantum Native American.
The African Americans were enslaved for over 400 years - They were treated (in my opinion) far worse than Native Americans ever were - where is their monthly paycheck?
Look, I agree with you. If it was about giving people money for their ancestor's sufferings then I would put African Americans and Holicaust Victims at the top of the list. BUT IT ISN'T, AND THAT'S WHY AFRICAN AMERICANS AREN'T WINNING SETTLEMENTS FOR LAND CLAIMS AND BROKEN TREATIES.
Secondly, I DO think that African Americans deserve something for their 400 year enslavement. How about giving them an incentive to get an education, or providing some after school activity funds to get kids off the street. (You'd be amazed how much crime drops between the hours of a youth basketball game, and you'd be even more surprised how CHEAP of a solution it is...)
LASTLY, You should note that the Native Americans who ARE living off the government do it through the WELFARE SYSTEM. That's the same welfare system that poor white trash and poor black trash live off. So why are you singling them out as people who have a special priveledge to live off the government?
If you're so jealous, you can knock up your girlfriend a couple times, find a trailer park somewhere and live off the system too!
HERE'S MY POINT: You don't know half of what's going on and you're desperately trying to reduce everything to this simplistic notion of "Why should I pay for my grandpappy's mistake?" when it isn't about that.
I'm not going to pretend I know half of what's going on, but giving how you've continually demonstrated you have a hard time grasping basic concepts of common law, I know better than to listen to you.
Everybody's 1/16 Cherokee. It does nothing for the record.
This is not about handouts or reparations. Our government signed a lot of treaties that they were legally bounded by. Our government broke those treaties, so our courts have rightly decided that our government should PAY DAMAGES for violating agreements it entered in...
It's not about you and me paying for our grandparents mistakes. It's about the US and Canadian governments paying for their mistakes. If you really don't want to continue paying for our countries past mistakes, then I can suggest a number of countries where you can emmigrate.
Lastly, ending your posts with STFU cements your juvenille tendencies. IE, It makes you look really stupid.
It's clear that you don't hate native Americans, you're just prejudiced....because the recipients are a rural Native American group, they clearly don't deserve it because by default it's a handout for people who are clearly lazy by default.
Another thing, for all the federal money that's been giving to different states and municipalities for telecommunications projects/infratstructure, I don't hear you stigmitizing those recipients with offensive stereotypes.
If you're still so concerned about paying for handouts, maybe I should direct your attention to Medicare and Social Security which easily take up almost half of the federal budget compared to the miniscule amount that is allocated to THE SUM OF ALL OF THESE PROJECTS/PROGRAMS.
You're not a racist. You're just prejudiced. As a white man, I'm all too aware of how a good many white Americans REALLY feel.
(here. I signed up for an account, now I will repost.)
By the way, I'm the guy you're replying to, but I'm not the original poster. I'm a white guy who happens to know a little bit about this stuff.
Like you, I don't believe in welfare, BUT UNLIKE YOU, I understand this is not about welfare, reparations, or a way to punish us for our grandparent's actions. It's about holding the ***US AND CANADIAN GOVERNMENTS*** accountable for its actions and enforcing their legal obligations.
While it is common sense that you don't punish children for their parent's actions (AND I AGREE WITH THIS PRINCIPLE), it's also common sense that a corporation cannot escape its legal obligations just because ownership is transferred.
Do you get it now?
If you finally get it, please tell your friends. There are too many people who share your misconception of the situation.
Slashdot Mirror
I was right there with you when you rightly critisized the parent of living in a sad insular world where his viewpoints and prejudices go unchallenged. You followed it up with a wonderful suggestion that he should "Try being open-minded, it's amazing."
Then you wrote:
Also thank you for helping to substantiate my general thesis that liberal stopped meaning open-minded long ago.
Since when were sealing your prejudices a part of being open-minded? How is that not being insular? Sure, you technically "listen" to an opposing viewpoint, but then you pre-invalidate with prejudice.
Lastly, you just end up cementing liberals prejudices that conservatives are hypocrits, disgracing the good name of consistent and open-minded conservatives.
Unfortunately, on the internet it's also pretty easy to get the idea that sex with animals and with "women" with male genitilia are commonplace. They're also likely to get the idea that only women that look like young teenage girls are really desirable and that they should have as many sexual partners as physically possible at one time. I'll give you your argument that porn promotes the teen body, but it will teach kids that sex with animals is commonplace? Are you kidding me? I remember joking about beastiality when I was 10 with other classmates in my little Christian school. Nobody takes beastiality seriously. It's always been a tool to gross out your friends, or an insult to throw around. Will it verify its existance to a kid? Sure. Will they think it's normal sexual behavior? Are you kidding me?
I've been downloading porn from BBS's since I was 13. I'm 27 now. That means I've been "desensitizing" myself to online porn for 15 YEARS, and so have a lot of my friends (whom I introduced to online porn back in the BBS days)
;)
I've been living with my wife for almost 5 years and we have a wonderful sexual relationship. I understand that she wants affection more times than not, while I want imagery more times than not. The solution? We compromise. We're both average looking and while I have absolutely NO complexes about my body, my wife shares the problem most women have over their self-image, which I attribute to Hollywood and the fashion industry.
Come to think of it:
If you look at what porn is selling today, you will note that the body images promoted by the porn industry is A LOT more diverse than Hollywood and the fashion industry. You have MILF's, Grannies, Fatties, Blacks, Asians, Latinos, Crackwhores, Girls-next-door, Butch Lesbos, Big titties, small titties, big asses, bone racks, hairy bushes, shaved bushes, trans-sexuals, nerdy girls, ugly girls, YOU NAME IT!
LET FACE IT: It is Hollywood and the fashion industry and "Reality Shows" giving people makeovers who are selling the unrealistic body images. They convince people their bodies are horrible and sexless to set people up to buy their products and services, which will magically make them sexy and appealing again.
If the porn industry is guilty of ANYTHING these days, it's poor story and character development. As someone who has been desensitized to porn, I would really love to see producers take a risk and develop REALLY GOOD MOVIES with GREAT character development and a lot of sexual explicit scenes. I also hate the fact that sexually active women get pegged as dumb sluts when I know SMART GIRLS LOVE TO FUCK.
That's why I married a smart girl.
Piracy is the biggest killer app of DSL/Cable modems.
First, you should note the listed telecom providers do not have thier money tied up in the content industry unlike AOL, Cablevision, Comcast, etc.
The RBOC's are losing a lot of business to wireless, cable companies, VOIP and cable companies bundling entertainment (TV, Video on Demand), VOIP with thier cable modem services.
The best way RBOC's like Verizon can compete is to sell DSL connections that users can use to download music and movies off Kazaa. Doing this does a couple of things:
1. It devalues their competitors bundled products (music/movies on demand).
2. They indirectly add similar value to their own service cheaper than their competitors.
Intel and other hardware companies have different motivations. They want to make the killer hardware that allows users to download/archive/playback free content whenever they want.
It's a big war between the content companies and the technology companies, and the technology companies have a MUCH bigger bankroll than the content companies.
You're right. I wasn't replying to you. I was replying to the guy pretending to be you and claimed it was more than one job. What's wrong with obese black women? I think you're a racist. I don't think there's anything wrong with it, you can bet your ass a good many people believe see them as their inferiors. You can believe I'm a racist all you want, just like I can believe (and with good conviction) that you couldn't get the point if you fell on a bed of needles. Seriously, I don't really think you're that stupid, rather I'm more inclined to believe you were just being dishonest by intentionally presenting asserting a falicous conclusion. If you want to blatently lie and present misleading arguments to try and win your argument, then I'd like to forwarn you that I will not let you get away with any bullshit. ...but since you're not the guy pretending to be you, I really couldn't give a shit.
Native Americans still have access to the "property" we are renting and all rights and priviledges we do, aside from their own land that we have no rights to.
What you're talking about is the ability purchase the property we are renting. Yes, Native Americans can purchase this land they same way we can purchase it, but try to remember:
You can only purchase the land if the current owner is willing to sell the land.
Think about it. The natives have been tricked, robbed, and killed from their land. Do you think they're going to want to sell it off after all that???
Now they could just exercise their rights and refuse to sell thier land, but having been tricked into selling their land for beeds for so long, you can bet they want extra protection by now.
Especially after schemes that including giving the chief and counsel nice little kickbacks. So, in order to keep the white man from tricking them again, what do you think they did?
They opted to make giving their land away VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE, which is well within their rights as property owners. (Especially if the government agrees.)
They still have access to welfare, can vote, are considered citizens AND collect rent.
Just like any other citizen who rents thier land or wins a land claim. You do know that white people can file land claims too, right? (If they have a valid claim.)
If you could convince the government to sign a treaty where you are semi-sovereign and don't have to pay taxes, you would expect the government to hold up it's end of the bargain, right?
I am still tired of carrying around someone else's guilt.
Again, this has nothing to do with retributions or guilt. It's about property rights and upholding the principles of contract law by holding parties responsible for the contracts they sign.
Look, I'm sorry you feel tired of carrying around someone else's guily. I personally don't feel that way.
If my company had to fire me because they lost a lawsuit where they were in the wrong, I would blame my company, not the other party who was wrong.
Let me sum this up for you:
Your government has been financially obligating to ALL SORTS of debt you didn't agree to since before you were born. So why single out the commitments they made (and broke) to the Native Americans?
If you're seriously going to complain about being in debt to the government's actions then I'd like to direct your attention to the following:
Did you agree to:
* Establish Social Security, Medicare?
* Commit to Federal Highway, Defense spending?
* Farm Subsidies, Universal Welfare?
* and borrowing trillions of dollars from China to pay for all of these?
Now if you believe that governments shouldn't be able to commit its citizens to these obligations, then I'll honor and respect your beliefs.
BUT, if you believe our government has the right to commit its citizens, then I think you need to explain why you're singling out our government's commitments to the Native Americans.
Now maybe my perspective is skewed because it would be easier for me to justify compensation for ancesteral pain and suffering than it is to justify STILL paying for "LAND CLAIMS AND BROKEN TREATIES". If it comes down to broken contracts, we should have had this resolved 100 years ago.
Pardon me if I come off condescending, but it isn't all that uncommon for a land claim to be settled in a way that the stolen land is perpetually rented, because the damages are perpetual.
Think of it this way: You either give back the land, or you pay rent.
PS, I might as well admit that my wife is a Canadian North American Native and my mother-in-law is a top lands manager (Awarded 1st Lands Manager of the Year for all of Canada).
That explains why she had to pay for her education and only received $2 a year from an OLD settlement. (Canadians got a shittier deal.)
If I've learned anything from talking to my mother-in-law, I've learned the politics and legal matters involved are not very poorly understood by the majority of people for a number of reasons.
Who's advocating a welfare state?
My point was: Why are you singling out Native American welfare recipients?
Secondly, If you ARE going to give someone a helping hand, isn't giving money to help build a telecommunications infrastructure one of the good ways? Isn't giving them an incentive to get an education a good way?
THEY AREN'T GETTING FREE INTERNET. They still have to pay $30-$50 a month to use the service, so what's the big deal?
The federal government gave the regional bells BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS of dollars to help build OUR telecommunications infrastructure. So why are you singling out this little venture?
Your so vague, which is usually an indicator that someone is full of shit.
...and don't try telling me people aren't discriminating against these days. Most people are discriminated against these days, especially ugly people, and GOD FORBID if you're an ugly fat black woman who speaks like a black person.
Tell me, if you haven't been hired for a couple of jobs because your white why do you:
1. Mention only the ONE scenario which you actually did get the job.
2. Failed to mention the plurality of your discrimination?
Quit pretending to be a victim. Any discrimination you've experience doesn't come close to the prejudice and discrimination that poor minorities have to deal with...
I know plenty of fellow white people who aren't technically racists (because they believe some minorities are good), but can't seem to kick the racial prejudice and can't even fathom their inherant non-racial prejudice.
Are Enron's employees responsible for the actions of the executives?
This is a terrible analogy, which probably explains why you're so confused, so here's a better one.
If your company was to lose a patent infringement case and the judgement was to pay 25% royalties indefinitely, your company may be forced to reduce your salary by 25%.
Are employees responsible for the wrong doing of thier company's? NO.
Can employees suffer from the wrong doing of their company. YES.
It's sad, but that's the way things have to be or corporate thieves would always be hiding behind their employees to escape prosecution.
When will it be over for us?
In many cases it is. A lot of treaty and land claim settlements ended up as a one-time payouts that were put into funds, while other settlements were payed out indefinitely. For example my wife (there, I let my bias slip out) gets a whopping $2 a year that she can use to help her pay her student loans, and she's 100% blood quantum Native American.
The African Americans were enslaved for over 400 years - They were treated (in my opinion) far worse than Native Americans ever were - where is their monthly paycheck?
Look, I agree with you. If it was about giving people money for their ancestor's sufferings then I would put African Americans and Holicaust Victims at the top of the list. BUT IT ISN'T, AND THAT'S WHY AFRICAN AMERICANS AREN'T WINNING SETTLEMENTS FOR LAND CLAIMS AND BROKEN TREATIES.
Secondly, I DO think that African Americans deserve something for their 400 year enslavement. How about giving them an incentive to get an education, or providing some after school activity funds to get kids off the street. (You'd be amazed how much crime drops between the hours of a youth basketball game, and you'd be even more surprised how CHEAP of a solution it is...)
LASTLY, You should note that the Native Americans who ARE living off the government do it through the WELFARE SYSTEM. That's the same welfare system that poor white trash and poor black trash live off. So why are you singling them out as people who have a special priveledge to live off the government?
If you're so jealous, you can knock up your girlfriend a couple times, find a trailer park somewhere and live off the system too!
HERE'S MY POINT: You don't know half of what's going on and you're desperately trying to reduce everything to this simplistic notion of "Why should I pay for my grandpappy's mistake?" when it isn't about that.
I'm not going to pretend I know half of what's going on, but giving how you've continually demonstrated you have a hard time grasping basic concepts of common law, I know better than to listen to you.
Everybody's 1/16 Cherokee. It does nothing for the record.
This is not about handouts or reparations. Our government signed a lot of treaties that they were legally bounded by. Our government broke those treaties, so our courts have rightly decided that our government should PAY DAMAGES for violating agreements it entered in...
It's not about you and me paying for our grandparents mistakes. It's about the US and Canadian governments paying for their mistakes. If you really don't want to continue paying for our countries past mistakes, then I can suggest a number of countries where you can emmigrate.
Lastly, ending your posts with STFU cements your juvenille tendencies. IE, It makes you look really stupid.
Boo hoo. One lousy job, and you STILL got it.
Talk about being a whining victim.
It's clear that you don't hate native Americans, you're just prejudiced. ...because the recipients are a rural Native American group, they clearly don't deserve it because by default it's a handout for people who are clearly lazy by default.
Another thing, for all the federal money that's been giving to different states and municipalities for telecommunications projects/infratstructure, I don't hear you stigmitizing those recipients with offensive stereotypes.
If you're still so concerned about paying for handouts, maybe I should direct your attention to Medicare and Social Security which easily take up almost half of the federal budget compared to the miniscule amount that is allocated to THE SUM OF ALL OF THESE PROJECTS/PROGRAMS.
You're not a racist. You're just prejudiced. As a white man, I'm all too aware of how a good many white Americans REALLY feel.
(here. I signed up for an account, now I will repost.)
By the way, I'm the guy you're replying to, but I'm not the original poster. I'm a white guy who happens to know a little bit about this stuff.
Like you, I don't believe in welfare, BUT UNLIKE YOU, I understand this is not about welfare, reparations, or a way to punish us for our grandparent's actions. It's about holding the ***US AND CANADIAN GOVERNMENTS*** accountable for its actions and enforcing their legal obligations.
While it is common sense that you don't punish children for their parent's actions (AND I AGREE WITH THIS PRINCIPLE), it's also common sense that a corporation cannot escape its legal obligations just because ownership is transferred.
Do you get it now?
If you finally get it, please tell your friends. There are too many people who share your misconception of the situation.