Honest invitation to the Leftist Liberals -- please, tell us on the Right what you REALLY want!

I agree in principle, however, that examination must be scientific, not political. As an example, we can take cigarettes. The consensus was that smoking increases the risk of cancer. However, a powerful lobby had a vested interest in denying that conclusion. In the court of public opinion, you can always get people to question something, and you can never really be 100% certain of anything practical. So, you can find thousands of doctors and scientists that are willing to say that smoking isn't harmful, and is even good for you. And, you can always find people who smoked all of their lives and never contracted cancer. And you can always find bad studies done that show the correct conclusion. Given enough influence and support from politicians, it could be turned into a political, and therefore emotional issue, and could to this day be a hotly debated topic even though almost all scientists and doctors who actually know what they are talking about have essentially zero doubt. But, that 'essentially' part is what could be focused on. When people are emotionally invested, they change their threshold for proof. If they don't want to accept overwhelming evidence, they can move the bar to focus on the small chance the conclusion is wrong saying 'hey I'll believe it if you prove it to me.' Conversely, given a nutty conclusion they desperately want to believe in, they will find a single piece of evidence that supports that conclusion, and consider it proof.

In general, I want people to think like scientists, instead of the lawyers we naturally tend to think like. Which is to say, look at the evidence and then draw conclusions. What we do naturally is start with a conclusion, then go seek out every bit of evidence to support that conclusion.

 

Both you and @Seth Bullock have objected to my #11 entry and posted what sounds like similar objections to it. If I have it right, both of you object to the S.1082 provision for Right of First Refusal on the basis that it tells businesses how they must proceed in selling their business. And you, 557, even refer to it as a "textbook violation of property rights". But Right of first refusal is a common and lawful contractual feature as you can discover by Googling "right of first refusal", and it turns up the following links and more.

https://www.agreements.org/right-of-first-refusal-agreement.html/

http://files.ali-cle.org/thumbs/datastorage/lacidoirep/forms/TPL0904-Houck_thumb.pdf

https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu.../&httpsredir=1&article=2884&context=lawreview

https://contracts.onecle.com/type/297.shtml

https://www.upcounsel.com/right-of-first-refusal

https://www.lewisrice.com/content/u...rst-Refusal-Rights-of-First-Offer-Revised.pdf

https://wickenslaw.com/what-is-a-right-of-first-refusal/

Given this, how does this affect your objection to S.1082?

 

If all you see on the left is "I want free stuff", then there is no chance of reasoning with you by anyone on the left of center.

 

The right of first refusal you are trying to compare this to is a voluntary contract between consenting parties. These bills mandate such a structure. The exceptions in the bills help but not much.

Let’s say you have a 60 inch TV. You’ve been wanting a bigger one. Your team loses the big game and you are so mad you want to take your TV out in the driveway and drive over it repeatedly with your Jeep.

Problem is there is a law that says you must sell any TV you no longer want to your ***hole neighbor. The same law set up a special government bank to loan money to the neighbor so he can buy your TV. You of course must buy a replacement with your money.

 

Oh come on. That's one hell of a lousy analogy.

 

I know. A business you have spent your life creating is much more deserving of protection from this kind of violation than a TV. But the principle involved is the same.

 

I get tired of the Right using ...terms like "Smaller Government" and "Border Security" with no real-world definition of what that actually means.

Two years later...Donald Trump still has not defined what a "Border Wall" is. Where it would be placed. What it's total cost would be.

There is 2,200 miles dividing the US and Mexico. Where does Donald Trump's wall begin and end?


two years later and no one knows the most basic of facts of a major project.

 

Fine, but it turns out that many Baby Boomer owners of small businesses, like my own brother-in-law, are wanting to sell their businesses and retire, and after spending their lives building the business, the last thing they want is for some big corporation to purchase it, lay everyone off, part it out, and sell it off to stop the competition. Many have employees who have been with them for a very long time and they actually care about those employees. They want those employees to keep their job and to keep the company running. And more and more are finding that selling the business to the employees is a welcomed and superior alternative. They do it largely via LLC law, but it still presents some challenges, and new legislation that facilitates the process would be welcomed and beneficial.

Meanwhile, a failure of a corporation the size of Nike or Sears may not be acted on by workers under a Right of First Refusal law simply because it is to expensive and too daunting. So there is some unknown limit to the usefulness of such a law due to these limitations.

 

I’m right there with you on the desire to keep businesses in operation in the US and especially to get more people involved in ownership. As you brought up, right of first refusal contracts are there for everyone to use if they so choose. But it shouldn’t be forced on anyone.

See, our desires are the same, we just have different ideas on the proper way to achieve them. I guess that’s what this thread is about...

 

Lets face it, all of this is POUNDING of the working class via the Republican Party while they pretend to be for the American Worker. Most republican's have not a clue they are contributing to it, but they do when they follow their OATH to agree with the party. Few of them run the party and it is for the big money players they do so. We need all the REGS pre Reagan and Tax laws / Rates of the same time. Do a Jubilee on all the debt, which would only keep Billionaires from getting more money they have loaned to the working class and small businesses.

Without it, we are in a world of ****. I would benefit greatly because Gold and Silver will sky Rocket. Most think this is untrue, but they lack the knowledge of what is really happening, laws in Place, the trouble headed towards the DOLLAR and how Trump has put the finishing stamp on the demise of our country. If he were to get elected again, he won't, but if he did. It would all happen in his next 4 years. Since he wont be back, it will be 6 - 12 years from now, we will fall behind China as they LEAD China, Russia, and India into the new World Order.

All the rich here are settled in nicely, it is the working class. I am ready to sell both our homes and downsize to one I can get free electric, and save tangibles on... With all the workers here going broke from the demise of the dollar soon, what good is real estate if no one has money to buy it. Going to be a real **** show.

 

Agreed that the stripmining of the wealth of the middle and lower classes has been going on for decades now and needs to be stopped and, if feasible, reversed. One of the easiest ways to make this happen is to eliminate the Social Security Income Cap and boost benefits for those who are entirely dependent upon it.

 

The easiest way to improve the middle and lower classes is to simply stop allowing open borders of immigrants that keep your wages down. There's 27 MILLION in the country already and that's 17 percent of the ENTIRE WORKFORCE!

You people are only helping businesses by keeping U.S. wages low.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/forbrn.nr0.htm

When businesses are forced to hire people away from other companies then wages will rise.

Why do you people keep voting for politicians that keep your wages low?

Steve

 

Excellent question.

Why do YOU keep voting for GOP politicians who are keeping your wages low?

 

I DON'T!

Doesn't it bother YOU that you are on the same side as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, that wants to keep open borders?

Steve

 

Now you are DENYING that you vote for Republicans like your beloved BLOTUS?

 

I never voted for a "BLOTUS."

I vote for politicians that are trying to improve the economic welfare of the PEOPLE!

Steve

 

Which politicians would those be?

 

When you keep believing every word and lie of the lying liberal media, you are continuing the policies that have caused your economic problems. And that is the 28 percent of people that still TRUST the liberal media.

Poll: 72 percent say traditional outlets 'report news they know to be fake, false, or purposely misleading'

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/3...utlets-report-news-they-know-to-be-fake-false

Steve

 

Why can't you tell us which politicians you voted for?

You alleged that the politicians you voted for are improving "the economic welfare of the PEOPLE" but you can't provide any names!

Why can't you give us those names?

 

I know where you are trying to take this.

YOU try arguing MY POINT that WAGES WILL RISE AGAIN when immigration is limited and businesses are forced to hire people away from other companies.

Steve

 

YOU made an allegation that you are UNABLE to substantiate therefore it is NULL AND VOID!

That is your problem, not mine!

 

Your denial is only being dishonest with yourself. As I have said to you over and over again, previously, you are a waste of time.

Steve

 

That you made an allegation that you cannot substantiate only downgrades YOUR credibility, not mine.

 

Do you realize that if you put the same $6k a year into a retirement account with a 5% rate of return you would have over $600k in 35 years?

Why do we need the government for that?

 

And this: