Gibberish
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2005
- Messages
- 6,339
- Reaction score
- 1,269
- Location
- San Diego, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
How does an accounting firm run without it's CPA licenses?
How does an accounting firm run without it's CPA licenses?
There you go. A corporation that cannot operate in the business realm for which it was created is dead, wouldn't you say?It doesn't. It's employees and clients get acquired by other firms.
There you go. A corporation that cannot operate in the business realm for which it was created is dead, wouldn't you say?
Gannett Company.I wonder what corporation owns usa today?
But you do contend that they weren't killed by the government, right?What is your point? I have never argued the company isn't dead.
I heard an interview yesterday with the guy that brought this case to the courts. He said that in oral arguments, one of the justices (I believe it was Antonin Scalia) asked the head of the FEC, that if his documentary on Hillary Clinton, that they had refused to allow him to distribute, was put into book form, would they still have banned it. The director reluctantly said "Yes".
According to the film maker, that admission turned everyones heads, and in his opinion, was the nail in the coffin of McCain/Feingold.
What he found incredible, and I have to agree with him, was the fact that the 4 liberal justices went against the first amendment guarantee of free speech, and voted to allow the government to ban books based on their content.
But you do contend that they weren't killed by the government, right?
Had the conviction been upheld, and the CPA licenses remained revoked, would you agree or disagree that they would have been executed by the government?They weren't. The conviction was over ruled by the Supreme Court and they were free to get licensed again. They just choose not to.
My assumption is they folded into other firms and are just doing business as another name now.
I don't understand the part about the head of the FEC would have banned "his" book. Who is "his". Just curious.
I heard an interview yesterday with the guy that brought this case to the courts. He said that in oral arguments, one of the justices (I believe it was Antonin Scalia) asked the head of the FEC, that if his documentary on Hillary Clinton, that they had refused to allow him to distribute, was put into book form, would they still have banned it. The director reluctantly said "Yes".
According to the film maker, that admission turned everyones heads, and in his opinion, was the nail in the coffin of McCain/Feingold.
What he found incredible, and I have to agree with him, was the fact that the 4 liberal justices went against the first amendment guarantee of free speech, and voted to allow the government to ban books based on their content.
Had the conviction been upheld, and the CPA licenses remained revoked, would you agree or disagree that they would have been executed by the government?
For obstruction of justice, probably you would be imprisoned. As far as I recall, that happened to a good number of the top brass at AA though, so to imply that the company "simply had [its] license revoked" is not an accurate statement.They wouldn't have been able to do business in which required a CPA license, yes. The company could have still have existed.
If as a person I committed these same crimes would I have simply had my license revoked?
You didn't give anyone much time to reply before you double posted. I agree with the supreme court on just about everything, including this. Conservatives on the other hand seem to attack the supreme court every chance they get as if they are more qualified to interpret the constitution...
I thought I was clear.
NO I do not oppose 527s. I just believe that, because they are not PEOPLE, that it is not unconstitutional to place limits on their political spending for particular candidates.
I know, it's very much a lawyerly way of looking at it, but there it is. Four Supreme Court justices agree with me.
None.how many corporations do you know of which have been extended the right to vote?
None.
The comparison isn't a good one - I hope we can both agree that it makes sense to give one person one vote (i.e. can vote individually but not collectively). Why do you think we should limit (collective) free speech?
Five disagree.
If you want to get lawyerly, the First Amendment does not speak, as other Amendments do, of rights "of the People." The first Amendment is a blanket prohibition against abridging the rights listed.
Now, consistent with a philosophy, as I have, that the Bill of Rights should be read as expansively as possible in what the Amendments protect, the argument that corporations aren't "people" doesn't mean their speech and association may be abridged.
Besides, no one has yet answered the question -- the New York Times is a corporation. Do you suggest that it is not covered by the First Amendment?
The Constitution doesn't grant any rights.
Constitutional rights don't evaporate simply because they're expressed through a corporation.
The opinions being expressed are the opinions of Acme. Not necessarily those of the people voicing them.
Wrong.
Read the federalists papers. Better yet, read the Preamble, the first three words are "we the people" "Not We the people and entities"
Next thing you will be claiming is that Soylent Green is people.:lol:
Excuse me for using the vernacular. But it's easier than typing "Rights gaurenteed by the restrictions on government as proscribed in the United States Constitution most specifically in this instance, the 1st Amendment right to free speach."
But everyone knows what I was talking about, or were you going somewhere specific with this?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?