Re: Helmet efficacy test

On 4/18/2025 12:17 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 4/18/2025 10:25 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:

>

On 4/18/2025 3:44 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:

On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:23:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 4/17/2025 10:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 4/17/2025 9:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

>
Oh, and "speech" in the form of millionaire or corporate campaign
contributions is an abomination.

>
How so?
If I have an individual right to free speech (and I absolutely do), then
why may my right be curtailed when I join with others of like mind?
>
It's a long standing feature of common law (well before USA) that
corporations are fictitious persons, entitled to rights of their
composite individuals when they act as one.

>
Common law or not, I think the idea of a corporation being a "person" is
nuts. But even if one accepts their "personhood," they should be limited
to the amount of speech that _one_ person can produce.
>
And "speech" measured in dollars is an abomination.

>
The party that spent by far, the most money in the 2024 Presidential
campaign lost that election by a significant margin.

>
dumbass still swallowing magatard spunk...
Trump 49.8%
Harris 48.3%
>
1.5 % is _not_ a significant margin. In terms of US Presidential elections it ranks as the 11th closest margin (out of 47).
>

 You and I agree on that.
 Others see it differently:
 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/media/article-14461599/stephen-smith- demolishes-joy-behard.html
 Mr Smith cites actual undisputed facts yet makes a very different conclusion. As is his right, but I don't agree.

I hadn't seen that, thanks. My opinion is that at best he's overstating the significance, at worst he delusional. My only exposure to him is his ESPN show First Take where he 'debates' sports events with other sports commentators. I've watched the show a few times, it's much like The McLaughlin Group for sports, including the shouting matches of which Smith is a regular antagonist. I can't stand that format.

 That said, the Presidential elections of 2016 and again in 2024 featured higher expenditure by the 2d place candidate which does cast a shadow over widespread irrational fear of 'money in politics'.  We're a nation saturated in media of all sorts and promoting a message, any message, is inherently expensive to garner any attention at all.  Plus repetition of the message.  Money is classically necessary but not sufficient.

yup, ditto Wisconsin Supreme Court election
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wisconsin-supreme-court-race-passes-90-million-spending/story?id=120343103
"That $90 million includes more than $40 million total spent by the liberal candidate, Dane County Judge Susan Crawford, and groups supporting her -- and almost $50 million total spent by the conservative candidate Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel and groups supporting him."
--
Add xx to reply