jmdrake
Member

Wait a minute. There's a trans-flag? I thought they were part of the LGBTQIA flag? This is so confusing. Did the trans-nation secede from the LGBTQIA nation?

Good for Mike Rowe, but he's being kind here. Fauci flat out lied. When he was asked about his mask flip/flop he said that the reason they said don't wear masks was to save them for the first responders. But the initial story he said was that it was because "Masks are ineffective." He lied. He's still lying. I trust science. I don't blindly trust scientists. It's like I trust God but I don't trust everyone who claims to be a man (or woman) of God.

At 2:04 "The specific question was about minors. Let's be a little more specific since you evaded the question." WOW! And yes. Rand is 100% right on this. And it's not just about "against the parents consent." What happens when you have one parent that consents, or worse is PUSHING the child to do this, and another who objects? Rand Paul 2024!

There were contracts before there were states. They were called "covenants." You can read about them in the Bible. For example the covenant between Abraham and Lot dividing up pasture land. How were covenants enforced? Mostly by honor. If you were known to be a covenant breaker then other people wouldn't want to do business with you. Loss of reputation, or "loss of face", was how things were generally enforced. Yeah...you could get a bunch of people with swords to enforce your covenant. But even if you didn't have the manpower to do that, simply letting everyone know "You can't trust Mr. X" was a powerful weapon. Now, back to corporations. Why do you believe it is necessary to have a legal entity that you need to have a government license to form called a "corporation?" Are you REALLY a minarchist? Here is a definition I found. https://www.lexico.com/definition/minarchy Minimal government; specifically a (hypothetical) form of government that does not interfere with individual rights and civil liberties, and that has itself no right to levy taxes upon legitimately acquired property. A government created license to limit liability, the very definition of a corporation, interferes with the individual right to have full redress for damages done to him by another individual or individuals who put their assets in that government licensed entity but maintain control over them for their own financial gain. So...how is that compatible with minarchy?

You mean like Gab or Parler swooping in to take on Twitter? Yeah. Then Gab got kicked off the Apple and Google stores. Then big tech went even further and kicked Parler off of Apple, Google and their hosting platform at Amazon. Sure, they can get another hosting platform. (In fact as of this post they seem to be back up). Still, without a presence in the app stores they are at a significant disadvantage. Of course there are ways around that. Mastodon is a protocol, as opposed to a platform, and it's impossible to ban a protocol. But Mastodon hasn't caught on yet. Meanwhile...as the now infamous Time magazine admitted, this "cabal" (Time's words, not mine) of big tech, big labor, Wallstreet, and "wokestreet" conspired together to control the narrative after (and really before) this last election. I am not sure if anything admitted in that article is per se illegal. But it sure feels wrong.

Corporations have MORE rights than individuals. That's the problem. Would agree with what? In the above video Dr. Paul was disagreeing with the fact that corporations get a tax break for healthcare spending on adults that individuals in general do not. Do you agree with Dr. Paul? And do you agree that corporations should get liability protection that people who come together and create a partnership by contract do not? Are you a statist? I'm not asking that question as a perjorative. I'm just curious. Do you believe that the state, itself, is necessary? Because without a state, all state created entities, including corporations, could not exist. As long as we have government protection for corporations, and by definition their very existence is a government protection, there should be some government protection FROM corporations as well. Antitrust laws fall into that category. If the state went away there would be no corporations and no antitrust laws either.

That is, in fact, a partnership. To be a corporation you have to have a GOVERNMENT charter. Period. End of story. And yes, that's true even for non-profit corporations. You can be a church, for example, and never apply for a 501 c(3). You are tax exempt simply by being a church. But you can't apply for those gubmit grants unless you fill out the paperwork, jump through the hoops and become a corporation. Back to your example. None of the contracts these hypothetical individuals draw up can REALLY limit their liability the way a corporation can. The issue with liability isn't just with the people you contract with. It's with people you DON'T contract with! With contracts you can create something called a "limited partnership." But even with a limited partnership, at least one partner always has FULL liability. Let's say persons A, B, C and D form a limited partnership. By contract they can say "Persons B, C and D don't have liability if the partnership gets sued." But person A still has the FULL liability. I learned about all of this when I was a teenager. My aunt and I went to one of those "Start your own business" con-job "we'll sell you a business for $19.95 a month" seminars. The business we decided to buy was one where they would daily fax you a list of distressed and returned merchandise that you could sell. (Yes this was pre-internet). I started reading about corporate structures. I thought a corporation was too complicated and didn't like the idea of double taxation so I looked into limited partnerships. What I was really looking for was an LLC, but those didn't exist at the time. (We ultimately quit the business because. Yeah you would get faxes of stuff you could sell....but without a store to sell the stuff...and pre the internet where you could put up an e-commerce store...it just didn't make sense.) Now, consider the LLC part of the equation. Once again that is something that you have to apply to a GOVERNMENT to start. It just can't be done by "contract." With an LLC or an S-Corp or any other corporate structure, if the driver for your company crashes into a Rolls Royce some full partner in your partnership is personally liable. So when the partnership runs out of assets, the unlimited partners assets become attachable. Yes you can have insurance, but insurance has limits. Sure the unlimited partner can declare bankruptcy, but that affects his PERSONAL credit. By contrast, if the LLC goes bankrupt, everybody in the LLC can walk away clean thanks to the GOVERNMENT CREATED benefit that simply cannot be created through contract. Even if you contract with ALL of your customers and EVERY institution that loans you money and say "You can't come after my personal assets", that doesn't protect you from liability from third parties that don't contract with you. What is the ultimate benefit of this GOVERNMENT protection? Well...corporations can take risks that individuals, or even groups of individuals (partnerships) would never dare take. And that's WHY they can grow so big. Further they can be owned by investors all around the world who don't give a rip what they do in the countries where they operate. Some GOVERNMENTS are the biggest shareholders in the world. But thank you for asking the question. I think that helps to clear up the confusion.

That's probably why they come up with such bills, they are frustrated with themselves.

Ron Paul is also against you on this.

Nope. Corporations are NOT inevitable. They would NOT exist without government. They are no more inevitable than drug laws. Marriage? Marriage was a religious institution long before we had the governments we have today. Terrible analogy. The libertarian position on marriage is to get government out of marriage. How do you get government out of a government created institution like a corporation? Rhetorical question. You can't. People coming together to pool their resources are called partnerships. Partnerships existed prior to governments. Corporations are not persons. Oh, and Ron Paul agrees with me on this. See starting at 4:30

A person is supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty. So is it proper for law enforcement to search the home of an innocent person, without a warrant?

I would bet you all the money that is supposedly in your bank account that MOST people do not understand how the banking system works or that more money has been lent out then there are deposits. But at any rate, contract law does NOT operate under the assumption that "well most people know this." And if it did that would be wrong. Right after the civil war many freed slaves put the money they earned in the "Freeman's bank" which collapsed 9 years later from risky and speculative investing. Ummm....that's what I said. I will repeat it. Maybe I should rephrase it. When putting your money in the bank, if the bank is engaged in fractional reserve banking, the bank should disclose that all of the deposits could disappear tomorrow if things went wrong. People put money in banks not to earn interest (the bank interest, if any, is pitiful), but for their money to be "safe" and available when needed. Now since most banks are FDIC insured that's not so much of an issue. Of course the FDIC is "federal" which creates the moral hazard, thanks to the repeal of Glass-Steigal, that banks which are just "safely holding people's money" try to act like investment bankers at the same time, taking risks knowing they'll get bailed out.

If everybody understood when then "voluntarily" agreed to put their money in the bank that it wasn't really there...then yeah. But if that is not disclosed there is no real meeting of the minds or contract. And all of this is propped up by the government fiction of corporate personhood. People can come together and pool their capital for joint ventures. Those are called "partnerships." Corporations should not exist. There is nothing libertarian about them.

Yeah....Rand wrong on red flag laws too. (He actually went along with them for a hot minute after Trump floated them). Here's the deal. Get rid of corporate personhood and you won't need laws to reign in the power of out of control corporations. A corporation is a legally created entity. A legal fiction if you will. As long as that legal monstrosity exists, legal mechanisms to reign them in should also exist.

I would go for one six year term for POTUS. Forget all the campaigning for term 2.

If you look like a duck and quack like a duck you are a frog.

Is not one election enough? If you do not approve of the VP do not vote for the POTUS.

Did this plane take off in Denver, have an engine fail and pretty quickly return and land in Denver? How did they recover a fan blade on a soccer field in Bloomfield CT? Never mind. Somebody asked about that toward the end of the video. He meant to say Broomfield Colorado.

The President has donated seven checks, $78,333 after taxes each, to different government agencies. He has not yet announced who will receive his final check from 2018. He received a salary and donated it. Is it possible that if Trump donated his salary to the swamp, the swamp had more money to waste. I would bet that the budgets for all those organizations increases frequently and never decreases.

I can only speculate that if toxic waste falls from the sky and lands on your property it would be the homeowners responsibility to clean up the toxic waste. If some valuable items fell from the sky, the homeowner would have no right to the items but would be responsible for fixing any and all damage on their property.

Which one was it? Did he take a salary and donate it to charity or did he refuse his salary and take only $1?

I could be wrong but I think you are wrong. I think he took a salary and donated it to charity. There is a difference.

It is obvious. He is saying I am eager to hear, ****** here next. I think he is calling for insurrection or an armed revolution. He needs to realize that words have meanings!

I think Massie is the best! However, most people do not go to MIT, develop patents, or have the capability to purchase and maintain 1,000 acre spread.

Looks like you're a prophet when it comes to the SCOTUS.

So ehhh... parrot is another gender? :confused:

I disagree. He made some absolutely indefensible asinine moves. "I didn't want to cause a panic?" Do you seriously think that didn't cost him any votes? Talking about injecting disinfectant? Letting Fauci be all over the map? Simple Trump win. In January 2020 if he made this speech he would have been difficult to beat. "My fellow Americans. I know what I am about to say may not be well received due to the recent impeachment trial. But we are about to be in a state of emergency. I have received intelligence from Taiwan about a new SARS virus coming out of China but this one may be much worse than the other. Taiwan is locking down its borders but not its economy. We will do the same. All travel to an from the U.S. will be severely limited for the next month. Any Americans abroad please report to the nearest embassy, consulate or military base for 14 day quarantine and testing. We will keep re-evaluating this situation as we go along. I'm asking Congress for immediate emergency spending to procure protective equipment for hospital workers and first responders and to ramp up on shore manufacturing of the same. Make your on mask if you wish. The plans will be on the Whitehouse website. I want a clean bill. If congress tries to put any earmarks in this bill I will veto it. Please call your members of congress and tell them not to do that. We will put our best minds not only into discovering pharmucutical treatments and a possible vaccine for this new virus but also put forward a clearinghouse of which already available treatments and natural remedies may be effective. The type of virus, a coronavirus, has been known to the medical community for many years even though this is a new variation." Yeah. That MIGHT not of worked, but it MIGHT have. The fact that Trump managed to keep things close despite possibly being the worst presidential candidate in my lifetime tells me how weak Biden was.