House Passes Mandatory National Service Bill

Ziggy knows he's dead wrong on this one Sam and I've started to look for what you posted a couple of times but it's been kind of hard working 14 hours days and you would be surprised at the amount of liberal material that pops up when one does a search query on the internet. Maybe now he'll move his BS to another topic.

Zig, tell us again, that WV Teachers have the right to "strike" without suffering any Legal consequences.

I did not say that.

I said that it is not illegal for teachers to strike in West Virginia. Thousands of WV teachers went on strike in March, 1990. And not one of them was officially charged with having committed an illegal act- despite the rants from Kanawha County Judge John Hey and some other judge in Greenbrier County.

Aaron wrote:Ziggy knows he's dead wrong on this one Sam and I've started to look for what you posted a couple of times but it's been kind of hard working 14 hours days and you would be surprised at the amount of liberal material that pops up when one does a search query on the internet. Maybe now he'll move his BS to another topic.

Sam did not post what you said, Aaron. Nor did he post anything by the U.S. Supreme Court- which you indicated as your authority.

Sam posted EXACTLY what I said. United States law recognizes corporations in the same light as a person, called corporate personhood.

And like it or not, the legal recognition comes from the Supreme Court case I cited.

Strike 3, you've been out since this conversation started.

And just because someone is not charged with a crime doesn't make that act legal.

ziggy wrote:

Zig, tell us again, that WV Teachers have the right to "strike" without suffering any Legal consequences.

I did not say that.

I said that it is not illegal for teachers to strike in West Virginia.

YADA, ... YADA, .... YADA

Same ole weazelwording your are noted for when trying to CYA.

Zigster, try explaining what you think the difference is between:




Zig, to really CYA, maybe you should cite that WVSC decision on School Consolidation concerning a Suit against the School Building Authority wherein the WVSC ruled that ......

"Yes", what the SBA did was illegal ....... and they better not do it again (or we will find in favor of the plaintiff).



.

The same is true with regard to whom I do business with. I will do it with whom I darn well please. If I don't want to sell or rent to homosexuals, an adultress couple, or an unmarried couple I won't. I don't much care what you, the Supreme Court, the State of West Virginia, or the leftist baffoons in Washington or Charleston think of it. Again, I work very hard to remove people from office who think they have some God given right to make me conform to their view of the world.

What is a baffoon? Do you mean buffoon?

Regardless. You didn't address the question(s). You just went off on a rant.

Do you not want the right for you and your fellow narrow-minded friends to create de-facto segregation?

Also, as my example of the garbage burning plant shows, you do not have unlimited rights with a piece of property.

A third illogical assertion you have made is that renting to a gay is condoning their lifestyle any more than selling them a car is.

Now you can rant all you like. The fact remains your arguments are ludicrous. Really, you haven't made much argument at all, except to imply that your rights are more important than those of others.

Terry,

De facto segregation already exists, and it is particularly a problem with the nation's cities. Compare downtown Chicago and Manhattan with the South Side of Chicago and the Bronx.

As far as renting to a gay couple, as opposed to selling them a car, as condoning a lifestyle, perhaps you are right that it is not condoning their lifestyle, but it is providing a space for behavior that Cato and others (including me) believe to be sinful. Sure, a car can also be the place of the boom shakalaka, but that is not a regular occurrence there and not a primary use for the car.

Similarly, I would support a landlord that did not want to rent to a straight, unmarried couple, either.

Now what two strangers do in someone else's house is of no concern to me. If you disapprove of your daughters' marriages, Terry, will you want their husbands living in your house? Surely not. And you surely will not want the government to force you to take him in, either.

TerryRC wrote:
A third illogical assertion you have made is that renting to a gay is condoning their lifestyle any more than selling them a car is.

And a Pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription for a "morning after" pill is guilty of what?

Being too busy?

Being lazy?



.

Aaron wrote:Sam posted EXACTLY what I said. United States law recognizes corporations in the same light as a person, called corporate personhood.

And like it or not, the legal recognition comes from the Supreme Court case I cited.

Strike 3, you've been out since this conversation started.

So what can't you or Sam post the Supreme Court language that says what you say it does?

I have. Like it or not, corporate personhood originated from Santa Clara v Southern Pacific railroad. That is a fact.

And once precedent was set, which it was in that case, each and every time the subject has came up in a legal case and withstood in a lower court, was then appealed to the Supreme Court and that case was affirmed by the Supreme Court without hearing the case or the court refused to hear the case thus affirming the lower courts decision, corporate personhood is validated.

Those stubborn facts!!!

Sp why can't you post that Supreme Court language? If it exists, you are talking about case law. But case law means nothing unless the language of the case can be cited.

ziggy wrote:Sp why can't you post that Supreme Court language? If it exists, you are talking about case law. But case law means nothing unless the language of the case can be cited.

YADA, ... YADA, .... YADA

Same ole weazelwording your are noted for when trying to CYA.

It wouldn't matter what anyone posted, you would just reply with some other silly assed request for them to prove something else.

I knew he couldn't do it, Sam. And apparently you can't either.

Since all the Law Schools in the US teaches said, then I don't have to prove it or argue with your silly ass about it.

.

Aaron said that corporations could not be regulated as strictly as the Congress and state legislatures might want to because corporations had all the rights of individual citizens- real people I presume he meant. His authority was the "Supreme Court".

(1) I doubt that is what "all the law schools in the U.S." teach, and

(2) Even if that is what they teach, then Aaron is still wrong unless there is Supreme Court language that says what he attributes to it.

That he won't show us the Supreme Court language speaks volumes more than what he does post.

Aaron has provided the Supreme Court language Ziggy. You can keep saying that isn't it but that doesn't change the truth.

You're wrong but too stupid or stubborn one to admit it.

Which is it?

Maybe it's both. Or maybe you didn't really "provide" what you said you did.

I'd say a little of both as every source I've read agrees that it came from where I said it did.

ziggy wrote:(1) I doubt that is what "all the law schools in the U.S." teach, and

Ziggy, I'm pretty sure that no one really cares about what "you doubt", .... unless it is maybe one of the members of your immediate family.

And as I'm sure you know, family members usually get quite irate and angry when you doubt their truthfulness and/or honesty.

.

So Sam, at how many of those law schools have you been a law student? How do you know what they teach there?

Aaron wrote:I'd say a little of both as every source I've read agrees that it came from where I said it did.

They why can't you post here what the Supreme Court said?

Why can't you post anything to support your stand that corporate personhood does not exist?

You are making the positive assertion- that the Supreme Court did what you say it did. So the burden of proof is on you. If you can't back it up, then maybe you should just say so.

I see you have nothing new to add to the conversation.