Yay, Free $peech! Amurka Ha$ Be$t Democracy U Can Buy!

[Indy]

[Saz]

I think this goes back to professors very insightful observation regarding words having multiple meanings. But it seems as if you missed that life raft. Now you are drowning.

[Indy]

I see. So it all depends on what your definition of "is" is.

So when asked to produce this "person," you cannot. You cannot provide a picture, or even what sex this "person" is. This "person" also cannot be physically jailed.

Instead, you can only offer me completely cartoonish, Clinton-esque buffoonery about how words can have multiple meanings. So when we say a "person," we can mean allegedly a variety of things, which is certainly news to pretty much everybody on the planet save for those indulging in this delusional insanity.

Produce this "person," or admit that it's really not a person now, is it? If it is, you should have no problem producing them. Yet you have repeatedly failed to do so.

[Saz]

We aren't using your definition of a person. We are using the legal definition.

[John Galt]

indy unless yo ucan prove everyone in GM corp was colluding then you're going to not be able to send anyone to jail for it. JAIL JAIL JAIL that's what's needed MORE JAIL FOR MORE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY.

more likely a few people would be charged because a few people hid information or whatever. if it was found that the board of directors did it then they should be charged. if it turned into corporate policy then you charge the corporation, as well as individuals who had a hand in it.

as this article notes, when actually looking at how jurys judge corporations and individuals, while they should be viewed as equal, jurys judge corporations more harshly and hold them to a higher standard. this is probably because a corporate entity is made up of groups of individuals which, in theory, should perform better

http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2011/07/pu ... defendant/

sure, it's probably going to financial hit to the company. what is the purpose of charging them? making sure they feel bad about what they did or financial restitution for the harm caused? it can end up leading to bankruptcy for the company. okay it's not going to go sit in jail, so what? why is jail the only punishment you think is viable? not only are other punishments viable, they are better. you're not going to have a corporation take on a corporeal form and go murder someone. you're going to have maybe some issue like, firestone tires have a tendency to blow and if your tires blow at high speeds if you're in a suv it has a tendency to roll. was this malice to cause people's deaths? no. ford and firestone paid out millions and millions to try to fix these issues that caused accidents. but you think they should be in jail. what does that do to help anybody.

if it was your way the people that made those cars and tires, the workers, would be in jail. JUSTICE SERVED.

[gla22]

Cars are inherently dangerous and sometimes certain cars are worse than others or are unsafe. Who do you prosecute Indy?

The engineer who thought the part would be a good idea? The CAD software programmer who didn't create a system that would let the user know that the part wouldn't work? The analyst who said after there only were 5 deaths after 7 years that there wasn't enough data for a recall?

[Indy]

[John Galt]

[Professor]

"Person" can mean whatever each states' laws says it is. In Minnesota, " "Person" includes a natural person and an organization." In other words, a person is both a "natural person" and an "organization". Indicating that they are separate things, but that have many of the same rights.

Kind of how someone here on a visa has many of the rights of a citizen, but is not a citizen. A corporation has may of the same rights as a natural person, but isn't a person.

[Indy]