Should Corporate Profits be Banned?

Dancing David said:
And you still lack data and evidence, this is not the CT forum, loose though the standards may be here, you should at least pretend to present some data.
Click to expand...


It's a murky subject filled with fraudulent research and cooked numbers. I suggest you read a few anti-modern medicine books such as "Hippocrates' Shadow" by David H Newman and "Confessions of a Medical Heretic" by Robt. Mendelssohn.
 
Robert Prey said:
The only laws the Founders "passed" was the Supreme Law -- The Constitution.
Click to expand...

Uh...No, that's not correct. See, those guys started the country, then became leaders of it. They then passed laws, like the Alien and Sedition Acts. They were signed into law by John Adams, for example, who is most assuredly considered to be one of the "Founders." In fact, the Founders passed quite a few laws.

Read some history, Robert. It'll do you good.
 
Robert Prey said:
The only laws the Founders "passed" was the Supreme Law -- The Constitution.
Click to expand...

And that Constitution did not abrogate the laws in effect at the time of the Constitution coming into force - meaning that certain laws involving the censorship of speech remained in effect:

Libel and Slander
Incitement to Desert
Incitement to Riot
Fraud
Perjury

All based on the idea that speech (and writings) can have criminal consequences, all in effect at the time the US Constitution came into effect, and all in effect now.
 
Border Reiver said:
And that Constitution did not abrogate the laws in effect at the time of the Constitution coming into force - meaning that certain laws involving the censorship of speech remained in effect:

Libel and Slander
Incitement to Desert
Incitement to Riot
Fraud
Perjury

All based on the idea that speech (and writings) can have criminal consequences, all in effect at the time the US Constitution came into effect, and all in effect now.
Click to expand...

But apparently it wasn't the Founders that did that. On Robert's planet, after the Constitution was passed, they all ascended into Heaven and were replaced by less stalwart duplicates.

Reptilians, I'm sure.
 
Robert Prey said:
It's a murky subject filled with fraudulent research and cooked numbers. I suggest you read a few anti-modern medicine books such as "Hippocrates' Shadow" by David H Newman and "Confessions of a Medical Heretic" by Robt. Mendelssohn.
Click to expand...

Thanks but no thanks. I get enough fraudulent research and cooked numbers from you.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
No. The cover up is that there is no cure for cancer, other than Mother Nature.
Click to expand...

Actually, people do survive cancer or at least have their lives prolonged by treatment. Of course, this varies based on the type of cancer, as per tables at this site.

ETA: This evil "Cancer Establishment" also stresses strategies for prevention of certain cancers, such as quitting smoking as prevention of lung cancer.
 
Last edited:
TimCallahan said:
Actually, people do survive cancer or at least have their lives prolonged by treatment. Of course, this varies based on the type of cancer, as per tables at this site.

ETA: This evil "Cancer Establishment" also stresses strategies for prevention of certain cancers, such as quitting smoking as prevention of lung cancer.
Click to expand...

When it comes to lung cancer, an ounce of prevention is indeed worth far more than a pound of cure. Ditto other types of cancers. But a cancer "cure" based on stats is highly dubious due to numerous factors, such as how early it was diagnosed and if it was diagnosed correctly. Many "cures" may be for cancers that are not really active cancers and pose little threat. Fact is, all of us have cancers all of the time, but the immune system (Mother Nature) takes care of them.
 
So there are some idiots that think corporate profits should be banned. I'm not surprised. There are also idiots that think Obama wasn't born in Hawaii or that LHO didn't kill Kennedy.

There are lots of idiots out there.
 
Cleon said:
Uh...No, that's not correct. See, those guys started the country, then became leaders of it. They then passed laws, like the Alien and Sedition Acts. They were signed into law by John Adams, for example, who is most assuredly considered to be one of the "Founders." In fact, the Founders passed quite a few laws.

Read some history, Robert. It'll do you good.
Click to expand...

The Founding Fathers were not all elected politicians who as members of congress then passed unconstitutional laws. Read some history yourself.
 
DavidJames said:
So there are some idiots that think corporate profits should be banned. I'm not surprised. There are also idiots that think Obama wasn't born in Hawaii or that LHO didn't kill Kennedy.

There are lots of idiots out there.
Click to expand...

And then there are those who call people they do not agree with "idiots" as a substitute for rational thought or argument.
 
Robert Prey said:
The Founding Fathers were not all elected politicians who as members of congress then passed unconstitutional laws.
Click to expand...

Not all, no, but the Federalists counted many of them among their leaders and supporters (such as Washington and Adams, who signed the bill into law). So while you're technically correct, your original point (that the FFs were "above" censorship) has been conclusively disproven.

Read some history yourself.
Click to expand...

I do it quite often, which is why I'm educating you. History is a fascinating subject; I wish you would take the effort to get it right.

The FFs were quite a diverse group of individuals and ideas, and presenting them as a monolithic group "above" things like censorship does a disservice to them and to history.
 
Cleon said:
Not all, no, but the Federalists counted many of them among their leaders and supporters (such as Washington and Adams, who signed the bill into law). So while you're technically correct, your original point (that the FFs were "above" censorship) has been conclusively disproven.



I do it quite often, which is why I'm educating you. History is a fascinating subject; I wish you would take the effort to get it right.

The FFs were quite a diverse group of individuals and ideas, and presenting them as a monolithic group "above" things like censorship does a disservice to them and to history.
Click to expand...

"Many of them " is not all of them. And protecting political speech was the whole purpose of the lst Amendment, Mr. History Scholar.
 
Robert Prey said:
"Many of them " is not all of them. And protecting political speech was the whole purpose of the lst Amendment, Mr. History Scholar.
Click to expand...

The whole purpose? What about "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"? You know, the first part of the 1st Amendment?
 
Robert Prey said:
A distinction without a difference.
Click to expand...

I see so a corporation that is not a bank and is not covered by the CRA just becaomes "a distinction without a difference"?

So the CRA did not cover those corporate subdivisions that generated teh subprime loans, so why would the CRA have anything to do woith them?

Because your imaginary fuzzy wuzzy in the garage told you it was covered by the CRA?

I take that as an admission of ignorance of law or an admission you were wrong.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Nonsense. Banks not covered were nonetheless influenced by the acts and had to compete with the easy lending practices of banks that were covered.
Click to expand...

So Robert, what easy lending practices of the CRA banks caused the mortgage corporations to generate sub prime loans at high interest rates?

How was that competition with CRA institutions, what evidence do you have that CRA banks even competed in the sub prime markets?

the fuzzy wuzzy behind your shed?
 
Robert Prey said:
When it comes to lung cancer, an ounce of prevention is indeed worth far more than a pound of cure. Ditto other types of cancers. But a cancer "cure" based on stats is highly dubious due to numerous factors, such as how early it was diagnosed and if it was diagnosed correctly. Many "cures" may be for cancers that are not really active cancers and pose little threat. Fact is, all of us have cancers all of the time, but the immune system (Mother Nature) takes care of them.
Click to expand...

Well, this whole "cancer establishment" thing is getting way off topic, but are you seriously contending that removing a cancerous growth or organ - such as the prostate gland - doesn't affect the survival of the person afflicted with that cancer?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom