he usually goes free unless he really fucked up

I am on my phone so I'm not in a position to provide data on Sarbanes-Oxley.

thats fine

if data suggests it worked, then thats a viable alternative.

Also human being choose to prosecute or not. I think sarbanes-oxley was not well implemented.

not many government stuff is.

@.B corporations are people because some smartass thought that was a good idea so now they can spend ungodly amounts of money on our election but its "free speech".

corporations being people is somewhat necessary, though

Corporations being a government appointed entity fwiw

I don't disagree on companies being able to put money in politics

the only problem is the government being too big

if the corporation wasn't a person, then any liability could fall directly on the owner

if it wasn't, they would have nothing to "buy"

also, Unions put way more money to buy the government than businesses

instead of going out of business, a person could be sued and lose everything. At some point a corporation becomes too large and makes the people running it untouchable, though.

it needs to be an entity of some kind, but rather than fix the existing problem with definition of a person, we just said "lets make them basically a person"

which then calls into question like: can i take my business papers in the HOV lane with me.

that's something I always wonder about... We have all these problems that just about everyone agrees were caused by government, but people's solutions always involve giving more power to the government

can they spend money under free speech on elections

inb4 "but mah freemarket"

like each president taking a little more power than the ones before, and no one thinks - maybe we shouldn't do that because eventually the other guys are going to be in charge

and they'll wield that same power against us

that's why the left thinks Trump is a dictator =p

yep

coz they put too many eggs in the same basket

Me having all the power = good.

Trump having that exact same power = bad

Orange man bad

I dont suppose anyones encountered the newest leftist talking point of "How dare trump use tear gas on civillians, its banned by the geneva convention!"

what?

tear gas is used on civilians all the time, isn't it?

Indeed it is

I suppose they'd rather him use bullets

They are also correct, but the geneva convention only governs the rules of warfare

yeah, that's more of a rule about not carpeting a city with gas and then rolling through

and against deadly gases like mustard gas and chlorine

I suspect they would, however they could never admit it publicly

liberals get the bullet, too

I think that the thrust of this talking point is similar to what tim was talking about with activist groups

Where radical groups would provoke a police reaction and then recruit moderates/average people who showed up to protest and got caught up in it

They want a higher body count at the border so the case for letting them in gets the moral high ground