Re: Helmet efficacy test

On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 18:27:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 4/18/2025 11:25 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).

>
Gosh, math can be hard! (For some.)
>
And I see the excuses are being piled in heaps. But despite the
irrelevant squirming, the _margin_ was minuscule.

Grasping at straws is all the Democrats have.

--
C'est bon
Soloman