|
|
Barack Obama was elected the 44th president of the United States, as the country chose him as its first African American chief executive.
Share your thoughts on this historic election.
|
Posts:
2,192
Registered:
6/23/09
|
|
|
Posts:
4,918
Registered:
3/19/05
|
|
(24724 of 24725)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 6:36 PM
|
Here's one of those things I found looking up other things. This one is mostly for the guys, Internet Pinball Database:
http://www.ipdb.org/
|
|
|
Posts:
2,975
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(24723 of 24725)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 6:05 PM
|
> Don17000
>
> The shares had no value, because the corporation they
> were shares of had no value, and wasn't going to have
> any until the deal went through.
>
> You wrote that your father transferred shares over
> the the new corp.? If a share has no value, then the
> share does not exist, the corporation to which the
> shares belong to, do not exist. So, there must have
> been so value of those shares.
>
> I guess the question is when does business begin or
> when is the business created?
>
> In your example the corp was created to serve a
> purpose, maybe a holding company. It sounds like it
> was being used to invest, and provide some type of
> tax benefit.
>
> The corporation continued operations. The
> corporation was set up to provide some type of
> service to its members. So, over the years the
> corporation was kept, to be used when that service
> was needed. Because its services were never needed,
> that does not change what it is. A business.
>
No, not a business. Just a corporation. No transactions. No decisions. No business. Each time you post this, you just prove you really don't know what a business is, or how it differs from a corporation. I think we get that now.
> So, say you open up a writing business, where in your
> write stuff for people. If no ever comes in and uses
> your service, are you still a writer? Yes. Does the
> business not exist, because no one used it? No.
That's not the same thing at all. I would be trying to promote the business, spending money for supplies, making decisions about where to search for and attract customers. If I don't actually get any customers, it's a business running at a loss. But if I'm not actually trying to get customers, even the IRS would say it isn't a business, not even for tax purposes. They would call it a hobby.
As
> long as you continue operations, the business will
> still be a business. Just as your father's
> corporation did not provide its intended services,
> does not mean it was not still a business.
No, the fact that it never did any business meant it was not yet a business, only a shell corporation. A corporation can't BE a business, unless it DOES business.
A
> business was created and continued, to provide a
> service. That service was not needed, but the
> business continued until the service was needed or
> was dissolved.
>
This would be true if the business was engaged in trying to find customers, or otherwise making business decisions, even if that was limited to ordering business cards.
> Another example of that, is a corporation of
> f which I am currently Treasurer, and have been 4
> times President, the South Florida Writers
> Association. We are there to serve our members and
> the community, but we conduct business, we have
> regular monthly business meetings, we hold annual
> elections of board members, etc.
>
> No term limits? What type of writer are you, books,
> articles? Can I read some of you writing?
No, we have no term limits. Most people don't want to be President, they just want to enjoy the benefits. I ended up being President for 4 years because nobody else wanted the job, and somebody had to do it.
You've been reading some of my writing on this board!
I'm currently working on a novel, and also on that Glenn Beck rebuttal I mentioned. I just published a poetry collection called "Rhyme and Punishment" which is a collection of limericks and sonnets based on weird but true news stories.
Some samples are on my website, which is here.
|
|
|
Posts:
4,918
Registered:
3/19/05
|
|
(24722 of 24725)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 5:58 PM
|
Obviously one of the mods is a sore Michigan fan.
I guess right now they're all sore.
--
Edited by s2grand at 11/21/2009 3:26 PM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
2,695
Registered:
6/8/09
|
|
(24721 of 24725)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 5:19 PM
|
Enough with the sophistry Sunaz.
Back to non-stupid reality, Obama's promised healthcare reform looks closer to being reality as Majority Leader Reid has amassed the 60 votes needed to open debate on the Democratic healthcare plan.
It looks like the Dems are getting tired of the mindless lock-step obstructionism of the Repugs.
Are the Repugs a political party or a Borg Community? Do any of those asshats have a mind of their own?
|
|
|
Posts:
2,975
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(24720 of 24725)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 5:15 PM
|
> Don17000
>
> How about, because you can live and work without
> health insurance, but it's illegal to acquire a car
> without any?
>
> Well soon that won't be the case. The difference is
> that you don't have to buy a car, therefore don't
> need care insurance.
>
> Also, you don't need insurance to operate a car.
> Renting a car, driving for a business, or using a
> a friend's car. You don't need insurance to drive,
> you do need a lincense.
>
I think you still need to be insured. If you're driving a friend's car, or any car, and you're pulled over, you either furnish proof of insurance, or you will be cited for driving without insurance. A rental car company will want to see your proof of insurance. If you have none, they probably won't rent to you without your buying their CDW.
If you drive for a company, you're supposed to be on the company's insurance.
> You can still purchase a car, and not have insurance.
> You don't need insurance if you are leaving the car
> r in the garage.
In my area, the dealer will not transfer title to you if you don't furnish proof of insurance. I don't know if that's changed, but I don't see why it would. I think the only exception is if the car is being sold as scrap.
It is however illegal to drive a
> car without insurance.
>
> But they can still get health care without
> insurance, and they can pay for insurance without
> getting any health care.
>
> Paying insurance is the way in which most pay for
> their healthcare costs. And yes copays and
> deductibles.
>
> Maybe with yours, although I think you're wrong
> here. With mine, there are discounts offered to
> non-smokers. And preexisting conditions mean they
> offer less coverage, or maybe none at all. Heavy use
> of health insurance may mean they'll deny the claims
> and drop you.
>
> They can't charge someone more if they are unhealthy.
> They can provide discounts for activities that are
> e healthy. Smoking is an act, not health. It may
> affect your health, but an insurance giving you a
> discount for not smoking or going to a gym does not
> mean you are healthier or will cost less. But, if
> someone weighs 500 lbs and another weighs 200 lbs,
> the premium cannot be based on health. The heavier
> person will not be charged more for their insurance
> because of their weight.
Going to a gym doesn't mean there will be fewer claims. Lots of people get injured in gyms, and even more pick up infections.
I don't know if premiums can be based on health.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,192
Registered:
6/23/09
|
|
(24719 of 24725)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 4:34 PM
|
Don17000
The shares had no value, because the corporation they were shares of had no value, and wasn't going to have any until the deal went through.
You wrote that your father transferred shares over the the new corp.? If a share has no value, then the share does not exist, the corporation to which the shares belong to, do not exist. So, there must have been so value of those shares.
I guess the question is when does business begin or when is the business created?
In your example the corp was created to serve a purpose, maybe a holding company. It sounds like it was being used to invest, and provide some type of tax benefit.
The corporation continued operations. The corporation was set up to provide some type of service to its members. So, over the years the corporation was kept, to be used when that service was needed. Because its services were never needed, that does not change what it is. A business.
So, say you open up a writing business, where in your write stuff for people. If no ever comes in and uses your service, are you still a writer? Yes. Does the business not exist, because no one used it? No. As long as you continue operations, the business will still be a business. Just as your father's corporation did not provide its intended services, does not mean it was not still a business. A business was created and continued, to provide a service. That service was not needed, but the business continued until the service was needed or was dissolved.
Another example of that, is a corporation of which I am currently Treasurer, and have been 4 times President, the South Florida Writers Association. We are there to serve our members and the community, but we conduct business, we have regular monthly business meetings, we hold annual elections of board members, etc.
No term limits? What type of writer are you, books, articles? Can I read some of you writing?
|
|
|
Posts:
3,209
Registered:
5/8/06
|
|
(24718 of 24725)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 4:20 PM
|
> longball38884
>
> The federal gov't was just found liable for the
> effects of Hurricane Katrina. It was found that the
> gov't failed to properly maintain the levies, which
> resulted in losses for the residents of those areas.
What are you talking about? If you referring to
Robinson v Corps of Engineers, that suit does not have to do with the levies.
And it looks like I stand corrected, the government may be held liable if they allow it. In most circumstances they don't allow it. That is to say they've passed specific laws freeing them from any liability for specific things.
Katrina was a good example. The federal government has immunity for any liability stemming from any measures designed to control flooding. That law suit was not about the levies. It was not about flood control.
>
> The city of LA was held liable for the actions of its
> police during the Rodney King episode. The city of
> NY was held responsible for wrongful action by the
> police department.
>
> If a state is rebuilding a road and there is a giant
> hole, meaning a car cannot drive through and no signs
> are posted and the road is not closed, the state will
> be held liable for any damage.
>
> You cannot sue the state when you blow a tire due
> to a pothole in the road.
>
> Actually I believe you can
Actually I believe you're full of shit. You're going to have to prove that.
>
> Bullshit bullshit bullshit. There is no contract
> between residents and government. There is no meeting
> of the minds. You have no choice but to obey the
> laws. There is no mutual exchange. You are not
> exchanging taxes for services. The government is not
> obligated to provide you with ANYTHING by virtue of
> them taking your tax dollars.
>
> By moving into the area, you are agreeing to rules
> and regulations.
Have it anyway you wish. But you do not have a contract with ANYBODY. The area (the government) has no contractual obligation to do anything. You are not paying for services. The government has no obligation to provide any services. They can change the services they provide even AFTER you have paid your taxes.
This is not the way businesses operate. Businesses cannot change what they provide after you have paid for it. If they do, you would have a good lawsuit.
GOVERNMENT IS NOT A BUSINESS. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
>
> So, when I enter a supermarket, what did we
> negotiate? By entering the supermarket I am agreeing
> to their rules and regulations, and failure to comply
> can result in my removal.
>
> You cannot sue the government for failing to
> protect your home when you're burglarized
>
> Just as I can't sue a store for my car being stolen
> or broken into. But, in both cases if I can prove
> negligence, they can be held liable.
>
> Say a cop patrols an area. So, one night he decides
> not to, and goes home an sleeps. My house is broken
> into. Now if I can prove that his negligence is
> partly to blame, I can hold him, the criminal, and
> the state liable.
Good luck with that.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,975
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(24717 of 24725)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 4:18 PM
|
> > longball38884
> >
> > You can opt out of going to a supermarket
> all
> > together. You can't do that with the government.
> When
> > you do business with a supermarket there is a
> > contract. Not so with a government, any
> > government.
> >
> > By living or working in a state, you agree to
> obey
> > their laws. A contract is created when you
> choose to
> > live there, or choose to work there. If either
> side
> > does not perform their obligations, then each
> can use
> > the court to be reimburst.
>
> Bullshit bullshit bullshit. There is no contract
> between residents and government. There is no
> meeting of the minds. You have no choice but to obey
> the laws. There is no mutual exchange. You are not
> exchanging taxes for services. The government is not
> obligated to provide you with ANYTHING by virtue of
> them taking your tax dollars.
>
> You cannot sue the government for failing to protect
> your home when you're burglarized. Not even if your
> taxes have been fully paid. You cannot sue the state
> when you blow a tire due to a pothole in the road.
>
> >
> > When you are passing through a government,
> any
> > government (as in when you are traveling or
> visiting)
> > you are obligated to abide by their laws whether
> you
> > know what they are or not. Got that? A "meeting
> of
> > the minds" is fucking irrelevant. There is no
> > contract. There is no business transaction.
> > None.
> >
> > As I enter into that place, I agree to follow
> those
> > laws. If I don't I can be punished. If I enter
> a
> > supermarket and don't buy anything, there is
> still
> > obligations on both sides that must be
> performed. By
> > entering the supermarket, I agree to obey their
> > rules, just as I enter a state, I agree to obey
> their
> > rules.
>
> The supermarket is a business. It can be held liable
> if you are injured on its premises. Governments are
> not liable for anything ever. They are not
> businesses. You do not have an expectation of
> anything and you cannot sue.
Plenty have sued the municipal government because they fell and sustained injury due to broken pavements. You can't sue if they fail to protect your home, but you can sue a government for false arrest if you're arrested without cause (like a homeless NewYorker arrested 27 times for violating an anti-loitering ordnance already deemed unenforceable, who sued and won a $100K judgment), or if they cause you harm through their negligence, like the guy who was kept in prison for 4 months after his sentence ended because nobody noticed.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,192
Registered:
6/23/09
|
|
(24716 of 24725)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 4:02 PM
|
longball38884
Governments are not liable for anything ever. They are not businesses. You do not have an expectation of anything and you cannot sue.
Take Ft. Hood for instance. Will the victims or their families be able to sue and hold the army/federal gov't liable?
If they can prove Hasan, was a danger and the army knew it, they can be held liable. They won't have to prove the type of danger he was, just that he was a danger. It seems the army failed to protect their workers. Were they neglectful? If you can prove it, they will be held liable.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,192
Registered:
6/23/09
|
|
(24715 of 24725)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 3:44 PM
|
Don17000
How about, because you can live and work without health insurance, but it's illegal to acquire a car without any?
Well soon that won't be the case. The difference is that you don't have to buy a car, therefore don't need care insurance.
Also, you don't need insurance to operate a car. Renting a car, driving for a business, or using a friend's car. You don't need insurance to drive, you do need a lincense.
You can still purchase a car, and not have insurance. You don't need insurance if you are leaving the car in the garage. It is however illegal to drive a car without insurance.
But they can still get health care without insurance, and they can pay for insurance without getting any health care.
Paying insurance is the way in which most pay for their healthcare costs. And yes copays and deductibles.
Maybe with yours, although I think you're wrong here. With mine, there are discounts offered to non-smokers. And preexisting conditions mean they offer less coverage, or maybe none at all. Heavy use of health insurance may mean they'll deny the claims and drop you.
They can't charge someone more if they are unhealthy. They can provide discounts for activities that are healthy. Smoking is an act, not health. It may affect your health, but an insurance giving you a discount for not smoking or going to a gym does not mean you are healthier or will cost less. But, if someone weighs 500 lbs and another weighs 200 lbs, the premium cannot be based on health. The heavier person will not be charged more for their insurance because of their weight.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,975
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(24714 of 24725)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 3:43 PM
|
> Don17000
>
> Nope. There were no investments. There was no
> business. It was just a corporation, formed as a
> contingency against anticipated events which never
> occurred. In the end, there was nothing for it to
> do.
>
> You had wrote they had shares tranfers to the corp.
The shares had no value, because the corporation they were shares of had no value, and wasn't going to have any until the deal went through.
> Did they keep the corp. going each year, meaning
> g they meant the requirements, such as meetings, or
> once the transaction fell through, they ended the
> corporation?
>
They didn't dissolve it, because they expected it would happen someday. I dissolved it later, in the course of his estate.
> The purpose of the corporation, the business of the
> corporation was to buy or invest in other companies.
No, it wasn't. It had no business. It never generated any revenue. It only had its expenses of incorporation and registration, and I had to pay those, as the corporation had no assets of its own.
> Your father used it for tax purposes, but each
> h corporation created must provide in the articles of
> incorporation, its purpose.
>
I never saw the articles of incorporation on this one. They were taken to Cuba when we lived there, and as far as I know, abandoned there when we fled in 1959.
> One such corporation is a mutual benefit corporation,
> where the sole purpose is to serve the needs of its
> members. An example that I was able to find was a
> golf club. This would be considered nonprofit, but
> not a charity. The members create this club, under
> this type of corp. in order to create a golf club and
> course. In return for their investment and dues,
> they have a private golf club only open to members,
> and with payment of their dues, the club provides the
> use of the course.
>
But in this case, the club's business is to maintain the golf course, which it does from the dues paid by the members.
Another example of that, is a corporation of which I am currently Treasurer, and have been 4 times President, the South Florida Writers Association. We are there to serve our members and the community, but we conduct business, we have regular monthly business meetings, we hold annual elections of board members, etc.
> I am not sure if a corp. can exist without doing
> anything. I would assume as long as they pay the fee
> and have the meetings, they'll continue.
As long as the meetings are required, yes. If they are no longer required, they can be dispensed with.
A car is
> still a form of transportation, no matter how it is
> used.
If it is incapable of transporting anything, then it isn't a means of transportation, but it may still be a car.
Because the corp. did not or was unable to
> perform its initial purpose, does not change the fact
> that a corporation is a form of business, like I
> wrote.
It doesn't change the fact, because it never was a fact. A corporation is not a form of a business. But a business can take the form of a corporation.
Now, if I take your claims, and my exact
> statement, a corporation is a form of business, I do
> not state that every corporation is a business.
But that's what your statement does say.
If you say that a doctor is someone who practices medicine, that's not accurate either. Some doctors are called so only because they hold a doctorate degree. It may be in medicine, or in physics, chemistry, theology or law. Conversely, many who practice medicine are not doctors... they include technicians and technologists, nurses, pharmacists, etc.
But,
> since every corp provides a service, in exchange for
> something of value it is a business. Because the
> corp is not providing a service at the moment does
> not mean it's not a business.
>
> I agree a corporation can be a piece of paper, but
> there are laws and regulations that must be followed
> in order for the corp to exist. If they are not
> followed, it can be killed.
But until it is killed, it continues to exist.
If a corporation does
> nothing, and files the proper financial statements
> showing they don't perform any type of service or
> product and has not assets, I am not sure, but I
> think that corp would not be allowed to exist.
I think someone would have to actively try to kill it.
--
Edited by Don17000 at 11/21/2009 12:45 PM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
2,192
Registered:
6/23/09
|
|
(24713 of 24725)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 3:28 PM
|
longball38884
The supermarket is a business. It can be held liable if you are injured on its premises. Governments are not liable for anything ever. They are not businesses. You do not have an expectation of anything and you cannot sue.
The federal gov't was just found liable for the effects of Hurricane Katrina. It was found that the gov't failed to properly maintain the levies, which resulted in losses for the residents of those areas.
The city of LA was held liable for the actions of its police during the Rodney King episode. The city of NY was held responsible for wrongful action by the police department.
If a state is rebuilding a road and there is a giant hole, meaning a car cannot drive through and no signs are posted and the road is not closed, the state will be held liable for any damage.
You cannot sue the state when you blow a tire due to a pothole in the road.
Actually I believe you can
Bullshit bullshit bullshit. There is no contract between residents and government. There is no meeting of the minds. You have no choice but to obey the laws. There is no mutual exchange. You are not exchanging taxes for services. The government is not obligated to provide you with ANYTHING by virtue of them taking your tax dollars.
By moving into the area, you are agreeing to rules and regulations.
So, when I enter a supermarket, what did we negotiate? By entering the supermarket I am agreeing to their rules and regulations, and failure to comply can result in my removal.
You cannot sue the government for failing to protect your home when you're burglarized
Just as I can't sue a store for my car being stolen or broken into. But, in both cases if I can prove negligence, they can be held liable.
Say a cop patrols an area. So, one night he decides not to, and goes home an sleeps. My house is broken into. Now if I can prove that his negligence is partly to blame, I can hold him, the criminal, and the state liable.
But, in the end and the way it should work, is that the person breaking into your house is the liable one. It is unreasonable to believe the police can stop every crime, but if they are in some way at fault or neglectful, they can be held responsible.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,192
Registered:
6/23/09
|
|
(24712 of 24725)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 3:08 PM
|
Don17000
The cheaper service is actually better for the USPS, as raising the price means more people switch to electronic alternatives, fewer people use it, and less revenue.
Yes, it is better for any business to provide the cheapest possible service.
The cost per person of the post office is $246 per year. $221 comes from service and the remaining $25 is unfunded. $75.8 billion in expenses of which $68 billion is paid for.
So, if the post office charges another $25 for its service I am paying that up front and realize the cost of the post office services.
If the federal gov't uses tax payer money to make up that $25, I receive cheap service at one end, and still pay for it at the other end. So, in this case it would be artificially cheaper service.
Or look at it this way. It costs $75.8 billion to operate the post office. The post office could provide free service and the federal gov't uses tax dollars to pay for it. So, am I actually getting free service? No, I am still paying for it, whether up front or behind the back.
Yes, you pay to use a po box, but don't pay if you get home delivery.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,209
Registered:
5/8/06
|
|
(24711 of 24725)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 3:02 PM
|
> longball38884
>
> You can opt out of going to a supermarket all
> together. You can't do that with the government. When
> you do business with a supermarket there is a
> contract. Not so with a government, any
> government.
>
> By living or working in a state, you agree to obey
> their laws. A contract is created when you choose to
> live there, or choose to work there. If either side
> does not perform their obligations, then each can use
> the court to be reimburst.
Bullshit bullshit bullshit. There is no contract between residents and government. There is no meeting of the minds. You have no choice but to obey the laws. There is no mutual exchange. You are not exchanging taxes for services. The government is not obligated to provide you with ANYTHING by virtue of them taking your tax dollars.
You cannot sue the government for failing to protect your home when you're burglarized. Not even if your taxes have been fully paid. You cannot sue the state when you blow a tire due to a pothole in the road.
>
> When you are passing through a government, any
> government (as in when you are traveling or visiting)
> you are obligated to abide by their laws whether you
> know what they are or not. Got that? A "meeting of
> the minds" is fucking irrelevant. There is no
> contract. There is no business transaction.
> None.
>
> As I enter into that place, I agree to follow those
> laws. If I don't I can be punished. If I enter a
> supermarket and don't buy anything, there is still
> obligations on both sides that must be performed. By
> entering the supermarket, I agree to obey their
> rules, just as I enter a state, I agree to obey their
> rules.
The supermarket is a business. It can be held liable if you are injured on its premises. Governments are not liable for anything ever. They are not businesses. You do not have an expectation of anything and you cannot sue.
|
|
|
|
|
