|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
We all hate one or many laws the USA has. What one would you get rid of?
The right of corporations to exist solely for private gain. Their charters should legally have to include taking the public good into consideration.
That already exists. It's called "taxes." No corporation has been allowed to exist solely for private gain since 1909.
It's a byproduct forced upon them against their will. There is something called a B corporation that actually takes the public good into consideration when making decisions, and it is part of how they do business. I'm speaking of intentions.
Instead of just destroying the environment without regard for the future, the B corporation takes pollution and climate change into consideration, along with their employees.
So yes, the typical American corporation would NOT exist if the greedy robber barons could not make a substantial amount of money from them. How many times have conservatives claimed that corporations exist SOLELY to make a profit, and everything else is simply a byproduct? Countless.
I'm arguing that all corporations should be B types. Are you seriously trying to argue that the regular American corporation's main INTENTIONS are not just to make a profit? Most are not Bs. If corporate taxes were lowered to 0, there would be no public good for them to consider. B corporations would STILL take the public good into account, even if we all only paid 5% in income taxes.
The intention of a typical corporation is to increase profits, and the intentions of a B corporation are not necessarily against profits, but they also don't act as though the lives of human beings do not matter. Public good is part and parcel of how they do business.
So you are right that there are corporations who do exist without the main intention being private gain, but these are the Bs.
And in case it's not obvious, the Law (one of the laws, this being the foremost) that I'd do away with is the inhumane, criminal-based one that says a woman has the right to MURDER an innocent child just because it's in her womb.
You are close, not to worry. In Arizona, they are about to say a fertilized egg is a child before you even miss a period! They call it "post-fertilization" human being.
Now...I am waiting for sperm to be declared life, and men to be charged with murder for self-pleasuring.
It is the logical next step. And when men's rights are stomped on--THEN we will go back to sanity.
As it is---crazy train is riding America's rails.
Choooo Chooooo/Ka-Ching Ka-Ching
More kids for black-market babies, selling on the foster-care child-line, drug mules, child-prostitution and satanic sacrifices. Way to go Cons!!
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/04/ari … oJoBlog%29
while they're concerning themselves with our wombs, this happened:
"U.S. priests accused in 700 sex cases in 2011: report | The Raw Story:" http://bit.ly/ItGLZA
and their hard-working Jobs Jobs Jobs Tea-Tard Congress: "In 2012, there's been 944 proposals limiting women's healthcare.**A DOZEN A DAY**"
Men's rights are already being stomped on. Have been ever since women decided the father of his AND her unborn child has no say in whether that child lives or dies.
So much for your supposed fighting for fair civil rights.
"More kids for black-market babies, selling on the foster-care child-line, drug mules, child-prostitution and satanic sacrifices. Way to go Cons!!"
Really?? 50+ MILLION babies have been killed in this country because of "choice" so
I'll take the risk of having bad things happen kids before just killing them!
Last time I checked, If it has a heartbeat, IT'S ALIVE!
And yea it sucks there are GAY priests in the Catholic church doing those horrible things. On the other hand though, you'll never hear about the other gay ministers in other religons doing the same thing.. HMMMM wierd!!!
POCATELLO, Idaho - An Idaho woman arrested for inducing her own abortion is taking her case to federal court. Jennie Linn McCormack was charged last year under an obscure Idaho law for ending her pregnancy with RU-486. She joins an increasing number of women who get the so-called abortion pill off the internet.
http://news.opb.org/article/idaho_woman … oth_sides/
I would legalize pot. Then I would force everyone to smoke it. This would result in a kinder, more creative, more laid-back America.
And...the economy would be booming due to all the sales of Cheetohs, pork rinds, snack cakes, and cookies!
Perhaps a little too laid back, not to mention fatter from "The Munchies Factor".
I like the idea of legalizing all drugs,regulate and tax them like cigarettes,this would be the huge revenue investment we need and would eliminate cartels and drug lords. It would also free up a lot of room in over crowded prisons.
Very good point Tammy. Plus, I think the drug lifestyle would lose a lot of appeal to younger kids. Especially when they wouldn't have to hangout with the shady people to get their drugs. Less kids would get tempted or pulled into the hard stuff.
I could kind of get behind marijuana because I favor taxing things I don't do, but I really don't know about the harder stuff. Their addicts tend not to function well as productive citizens, so I think the tax revenue boost would be short-lived.
I'm with you on that. I'm more apprehensive about the addictive drugs. Maybe we could make them legal, and then require background checks to get them. Also, there would be a limit on how many a person could get in month.
This might just leave the black market going though.
HAHAHAAHA!!!!! Honestly, I don't know why they don't.. IT'd just be another huge cash crop to tax!
I can only hope the pot statement was a joke? Now if you said, grow hemp, I would agree. Would create a lot of jobs. Not a material better for making ropes.
Why would the pot statement be a joke? It's actually a very good idea with many good reasons. Even a lot of people who are straight edge or don't smoke it agree it should be legalized. There haven't been any bad scientific studies on it, and the only downfall would be that smoking it is like smoking a TON of cigarettes, but still safer since it's free of those disgusting chemicals.
Now if people would EAT it instead, that just completely bypasses the above issue with smoke.
Legalize it, regulate it, move on.
Obamacare comes to mind. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)
"Marla Tipping's 14-year-old son Cam has to have his blood cleaned every two weeks. He has a rare condition that makes his body produce too much cholesterol.
Tipping says her family has had "to be absolutely vigilant in never having a lapse in coverage ... because many carriers would never carry you with a preexisting condition again."
That was the case before the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Now, children like Cam cannot be denied coverage because of a preexisting condition. (Similar protections for adults are set to start in 2014.) While Tipping says she and her husband still pay between twenty and twenty-five thousand dollars out of pocket every year for costs their insurance won't cover, the ACA at least guarantees that they'll be able to find some kind of policy for Cam, even if they are forced to leave their current plan.
Likewise, Stacie Ritter, a mother who participated in protests supporting the ACA's passage, no longer has to worry if her twins, who have a rare form of leukemia, will be denied coverage if they have to change insurance providers.
"This law protects them from being discriminated against if my husband lost his job," Ritter says. "Right now what's protecting us is the fact that my girls can't be discriminated against, we don't have to fear that we don’t have access to insurance. That's a really scary thought if the law is repealed."
I am glad that these people find comfort and support from the law. But if we allow the mandate to stand, what choices will the government strip from us next? If our senators and representatives sign another bill to find out what is in it, what will we be forced to swallow next? For the moment the people you talk about are getting the help they need. What happens to them when the bean counters decide that the treatments have been going on too long with no discernible improvement, making the expenditure to great and suspend the coverage as not cost effective? Where will they turn? When we, as citizens, allow the government to take away our freedom to choose what we want to buy, we have in effect turned our lives over to them. We will have lost our freedom.
"Margaret Atwood warned us in The Handmaid's Tale:
Commonly referred to as the “fetal pain bill” by Georgian Republicans and as the “women as livestock bill” by everyone else, HB 954 garnered national attention this month when state Rep. Terry England (R-Auburn) compared pregnant women carrying stillborn fetuses to the cows and pigs on his farm. According to Rep. England and his warped thought process, if farmers have to “deliver calves, dead or alive,” then a woman carrying a dead fetus, or one not expected to survive, should have to carry it to term"
Even if Terry England HAD made a bad comparison, it would've been NO worse than the liberals' comparison of a fetus to a useless PARASITE. But he didn't make a bad comparison.
And once again it looks like you've inserted paranoia into the assessment of a Republican's words.
I watched a video of England's words, and he was simply trying to simplify the intent of the proposed Bill. He was saying that since compassion is felt and shown for EVEN ANIMALS, then much more compassion and recognition of LIFE should be shown for HUMAN BEINGS!
He even explains this on his webpage. (He shouldn't even HAVE TO explain it, and if people would actually listen and read without jumping the gun and immediately jumping on a Representative because he's CONSERVATIVE, then there would be no controversy.)
NOBODY but YOU, lovemychris, and liberal-agenda-activists, are saying that the Bill means Republicans want to make women carry DEAD fetuses to term. Some people are just determined to blow everything out of proportion because they want to be able to KILL unborn babies.
Good point!!! It's funny how most these people will scream and rant about someone killing a minx for a fur coat but not think twice about killing an unborn baby.. HMMMMM wierd!
The minx is alive and breathing on the earth...a fertilized egg is just that---a zygote swimming in amnibiotic fluid.
You cannot discern the difference. Not my problem:)
Most corporations are owned by stockholders, who are people. 401Ks grow from investing in corporations. Major charities benefit a great deal from corporations. Most major charities are corporations themselves. Corporations to my knowledge take money from us on a schedule as does the government. Do corporations fire people? yes does government fire people? yes. Do investors thrive when the corporation grows? Yes, dividends increase, jobs increase. Do people thrive when the government grows? No, taxes increase to cover the increased cost. What is wrong with corporations.
I would abolish taxes. After that, everything else goes with it!
Similiar To England when it comes to guns. I guarantee the crime rate will drop.
Oh..and as long as that egg can't live without its host....the Host is the one that matters.
Feel freee to offer your wombs to be host Brenda and jane...that would be walking the walk.....after all--If you are going to demand your ideology be law of the land....that fetus is your responsibilty. IMO
The two people who produced the child are responsible for it.
Then it is none of anyone's business how they handle it.
Both do matter!!! It's when the mother kills the baby, that's when it's an issue.
What about killing the sperm? That carries life too. I say make it illegal to ej@cul@te unless it's for the purpose of getting pregnant.
That would surely reduce abortion would it not?
I would make marijuna legal and tax it with the tax going to repair America's bridges and roads.
Abolish Obamacare that has anything to do with corporate health insurance. Instead, instate universal health care, with a low copay (free for indigent patients) for all US citizens. Corporate health insurance would be seperate from government health care and can used for non-emergancy or life/limb threatening injuries and illness where the patient would be on a waiting list, i.e. old high school football injury.
by andrew savage5 years ago
What are the aspects of the two modes of practical law that make one incompatible with the other?
by Abihahyil Shawmar6 years ago
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith YaHuWaH, I will put my Torah in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their...
by awesome777 years ago
The minimum wage is a joke and I think it should be abolished. Let the market system determine what the wages should be!I know, some of you will scream and holler, but as a former retail business owner, it undermines...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.