Re: Helmet efficacy test

On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 08:22:08 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

On 4/18/2025 3:44 AM, Catrike Ryder 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. That suggests to
me that the amount of money spent is less significant than the
characteristics of the candidates and the number of times and places
that their campaign messages get repeated.
--
"Let it be"
--Paul McCartney

>
Maybe.  Could also be the c and the
actual policies promulgated. For some voters, anyway.

If the "policies promulgated" are not part of the characteristics of
the candidates, they'd have to be lying wouldn't they? ...and that
indicate the ethos of the speaker.

--
C'est bon
Soloman