The Democratic Party Autopsy Report

SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
All that NASCAR and Bud Lite must cause some kind of non lethal brain cancer in these Trump supporting fucktards.
 
ChefKimbo

ChefKimbo

Well-Known Member
SunnyJim said:
I understand the grammar and definitions perfectly well, which is why I corrected you.

Your use of the term 'private sector' wasn't misleading, it was incorrect.

I agree that there is no current legislation which prevents you from ignoring a black man on the street who says 'hello' to you or asks you for directions. You have every right to ignore him without falling foul of the law.
Click to expand...
You still missed the easter egg here because you dont understand the application of "person" in law.

Your more concerned with spewing your opinions and insults like most here.

Sadly, i'm 100 positive you still will not get even it after this clue.

A person is NOT a human being in all senses and definitions in law.
 
SunnyJim

SunnyJim

Well-Known Member
ChefKimbo said:
You still missed the easter egg here because you dont understand the application of "person" in law.
Click to expand...
I haven't missed anything, and I understand the application of 'Personhood' in US legal terms.

Your more concerned with spewing your opinions and insults like most here.
Click to expand...
You're*. Please provide a citation as evidence that I have personally insulted you anywhere on this forum.

A person is NOT a human being in all senses and definitions in law.
Click to expand...
This statement is completely incorrect. A person can be both a human being and a corporation under the 14th Amendment of your Constitution. For the ambiguity of 'personhood' in regards to an unborn fetus, see Roe v Wade.
 
ChefKimbo

ChefKimbo

Well-Known Member
SunnyJim said:
I haven't missed anything, and I understand the application of 'Personhood' in US legal terms.



You're*. Please provide a citation as evidence that I have personally insulted you anywhere on this forum.



This statement is completely incorrect. A person can be both a human being and a corporation under the 14th Amendment of your Constitution. For the ambiguity of 'personhood' in regards to an unborn fetus, see Roe v Wade.
Click to expand...
YOUR...still missing the point.

READ IT AGAIN. "A person is NOT a human being in ALL senses and definitions in law."

Atleast have the integrity to accept the sentence the way it was presented to you.

Lastly, in PRACTICE, a person cannot act as both a living soul and a corporation at the same time. You cannot be a fiction and fact at the same time. You cannot wear two hats at the same time. In eyes of the LAW(not your local rent a cop) the human being is an attachment or a surety to the corporation. And they have the authority to force you to act as both fact and fiction unless you have declared otherwise on the record.
Roe vs. Wade has NOTHING to do with the corporate person.
 
SunnyJim

SunnyJim

Well-Known Member
ChefKimbo said:
YOUR...still missing the point.

READ IT AGAIN. "A person is NOT a human being in ALL senses and definitions in law."

Atleast have the integrity to accept the sentence the way it was presented to you.
Click to expand...
Your use of language makes the 'factual statements' you post seem rather ambiguous and difficult to accept without clarification. This has nothing to do with integrity.

Is the point you're trying to make the notion that 'personhood' can refer to both a human being and a corporation depending on context? If yes, we agree, although I don't understand the relevance for the purposes of this discussion. Was there a reference to 'personhood' made in this thread which caused you some confusion on the subject of the statement (being either a human or a corporation)? If so, citation required.

Lastly, in PRACTICE, a person cannot act as both a living soul and a corporation at the same time. You cannot be a fiction and fact at the same time. You cannot wear two hats at the same time. In eyes of the LAW(not your local rent a cop) the human being is an attachment or a surety to the corporation. And they have the authority to force you to act as both fact and fiction unless you have declared otherwise on the record.
Roe vs. Wade has NOTHING to do with the corporate person.
Click to expand...
This paragraph really is confusing. Simultaneously living soul and corporation, fact and fiction, wearing two hats, rent-a-cops... what is all this in reference to? It seems like you're having a separate discussion to the one being had between the rest of us.

What point did I make about the Civil Rights Act that you're desperately trying to challenge? Let's start from there.
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
ChefKimbo said:
YOUR...still missing the point.

READ IT AGAIN. "A person is NOT a human being in ALL senses and definitions in law."

Atleast have the integrity to accept the sentence the way it was presented to you.

Lastly, in PRACTICE, a person cannot act as both a living soul and a corporation at the same time. You cannot be a fiction and fact at the same time. You cannot wear two hats at the same time. In eyes of the LAW(not your local rent a cop) the human being is an attachment or a surety to the corporation. And they have the authority to force you to act as both fact and fiction unless you have declared otherwise on the record.
Roe vs. Wade has NOTHING to do with the corporate person.
Click to expand...
Oh just go away with the "sovereign citizen" shit.

It is applicable NOWHERE in the world.
 
SunnyJim

SunnyJim

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
Oh just go away with the "sovereign citizen" shit.

It is applicable NOWHERE in the world.
Click to expand...
Oh!! He's trying to make a 'sovereign citizen (or freeman on the land)' claim for not being subject to the legal ramifications of the Civil Rights Act? Fair enough, I guess, although utterly misguided, as there is no legal precedent in the USA for 'sovereign citizens' only being subject to common law (or the law of the land). I'd welcome a citation to the contrary.
 
Dr. Who

Dr. Who

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
The guys that dropped the bomb were murderers too. They knowingly caused the death of innocent women and children.
Click to expand...
We all have opinions.

Rob Roy said:
Thank you for recommending the book and conversing politely. I appreciate that. I am not defending Trump, I am saying he's only threatened people with nukes, Truman ignited them. Neither have my respect.
Click to expand...
Your welcome Rob.
What would be the point of being an ass hat?
I may not agree but, being a dick, gains nothing. Speaking politely, and calmly. Tends to get the other side to contemplate what your trying to say much better.

Peace
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
SunnyJim said:
Oh!! He's trying to make a 'sovereign citizen (or freeman on the land)' claim for not being subject to the legal ramifications of the Civil Rights Act? Fair enough, I guess, although utterly misguided, as there is no legal precedent in the USA for 'sovereign citizens' only being subject to common law (or the law of the land). I'd welcome a citation to the contrary.
Click to expand...
At the very least he's angling at the "Govt is a Corporation" and "A person is a legal fiction" side of shite.
 
P

peabody2018

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
• After suffering from a falloff of turnout among people of color in the 2016 general election, the party appears to be losing ground with its most reliable voting bloc, African-American women. “The Democratic Party has experienced an 11 percent drop in support from black women according to one survey, while the percentage of black women who said neither party represents them went from 13 percent in 2016 to 21 percent in 2017."

The Democratic party can't even keep African Americans in light of what the GOP is doing.. that's humiliating. The GOP is filled with racists, and a significant amount of black Americans still don't cast their support for the Democratic party..

Why not?

Because the Democratic party doesn't actually offer much for black Americans to support these days.. Black Americans support a living wage, universal healthcare, universal college, etc. Establishment Democrats, don't..
Click to expand...
So the Democrats are racists also?
 
P

peabody2018

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
• “Emerging sectors of the electorate are compelling the Democratic Party to come to terms with adamant grassroots rejection of economic injustice, institutionalized racism, gender inequality, environmental destruction and corporate domination. Siding with the people who constitute the base isn’t truly possible when party leaders seem to be afraid of them.”

I don't think party leaders are "afraid of" their base. They're beholden to their corporate donors. What's good for the donors is diametrically opposed to what's good for the Democratic party base, so establishment Democrats are wading in this pool of half measures. Instead of getting rid of all of the Superdelegates, they just get rid of 60% (so far just on paper), instead of going full single payer, they leave 27 million Americans still uninsured, instead of just legalizing marijuana, they decriminalize it.. it's always some half assed version of the right idea, and part of that is because they stupidly believe in capitulating with Republicans, when the thought never crosses their minds when they're in power. You think any Republican gives a single fuck what any Democrat thinks about the tax plan? No, they don't. The GOP is purposefully trying to run legislation as fast as they can explicitly to avoid Democrats getting in the way. Why do Democrats do the complete opposite when they hold power and not pass anything without bipartisan support from insane people?
Click to expand...
Didn't they do that with the ACA?
 
P

peabody2018

Well-Known Member
Unclebaldrick said:
Ugh, so much wrong with this post... But let's take small steps.

Hillary did not "support healthcare"? Do tell. Funny how you whine about the "obamacare tax" but don't mention the cost you could have gotten insured for through the ACA. If you don't make a lot of money, your healthcare would have been subsidized (you're welcome) and been quite reasonable.

Please tell me about your exhaustive experience with the ACA. Were you disqualified by pre-existing conditions? Could you not afford the premiums because they were less money than the "tax" you were whining about? What has Trump done for your healthcare prospects? Please tell me, I am fascinated.

Sounds to me like something is amiss with your entire post or "shudder" your thought process.

What is really at the heart of your wanting to be lied to?

So you are still uninsured, and you will probably remain that way. And your job will be taken by a robot manufactured overseas. Nice job.

Democrats have not been vocal about the tax cut or net nuetrality? Hogwash. Maybe you need to read some actual news. Did you even watch the video?!

Welcome new member. Welcome indeed.
Click to expand...
I don't understand why anyone is upset about net neutrality. It was only in effect 2 years and there didn't seem to be any problems that it solved
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top