Nitro

Umm... and exactly where did I say that? Don't put words in my mouth. I said Left Wing NUT JOBS (IE: Extremists)... and yes, there are MANY of them in the entertainment industry and some of them have said they despise this country. THOSE are the left wing NUT JOBS that I am referring too.

Because the large majority of entertainers these days are left wing nut jobs that could give a sheeze less about their country and are too concerned about being politically correct.

I would think it would be legal. However, be VERY careful about what you put in print. If you do that, print ONLY the facts... facts that can be proven without a doubt. If you post ANYTHING that could be considered slander, she could then come after you for character defamation. Might want to get some free advice from one of the resident attorney's here on p.com about that....

I just recently had to get glasses. Always had perfect vision, but the Dr. said the computer is straining my eyes. He didn't say specifically which part. :blush: But a friend turned me on to eyebuydirect.com and I ordered mine from them. It took about a week and a half, as well... I got a pair, with the anti-scratch coating and something else for which I forget... and it was about $30.... the Dr's office wanted $150 just for the frames. The frames I got from the website were very similar to the Dr.'s frames.

Which is why my first post had a bunch of "If's" in it. If this... then that. I didn't say her specific case was one way or another. I stated how the basic system operates, if the business is a corporation or not. That was it. Nothing I said was invalid.

Sure they can... the corporation can file bankruptcy and dissolve all their liabilities. We aren't talking about taxes owed the government, we are talking about a paycheck. If there is no money left from a dissolved corporation to play employee checks, they employees are out of luck. It does matter if it's a corporation. Again, the tax argument is irrelevant. That's a completely different matter. The employee's paycheck is what was being inquired about... and if the owner is a corporation that has gone out of business and bankrupt, there's nothing you can do about it. I

That is not correct. If a corporation goes out of business and there is no money left, you're out of luck. You cannot go after a private party for the collection of a corporations liabilities. If a sole proprietor goes out of business and owes you money, you can go after the money from their personal assets. If that person starts a new business that is incorporated, it is also immune to any liabilities of the previous corporation or the individuals assets.

The the old business registered as a corporation or was it just a private proprietorship? If it was a corporation and they went out of business, you're out of luck. You can't touch the 'new' business at all. If it was a sole proprietor, the responsibility is still there for the individual. If the new business is a corporation, you can't touch them either, but you can go after the individual who was responsible for the sole proprietorship.

No, 3D printers don't remove excess material. That's called a machining and it's done with a mill, such as a CNC mill. 3D printers work by adding layers, not removing material.

Yes, in a nutshell. A 3D printer works in one of two ways: By either melting a material, such as wax, in very fine layers and changing the dimensions of each layer as need to change the contour of the object. The other way is actually a process in which thermoplastics are layered on top of each other, with the same principle, each layer has contour changes of the object being made. CAD printers send 3D "pictures" to the printer and it prints them with the specifications from the CAD. The process is not to print out workable objects. It's a step to enhance the speed of man

Bullcheeze. There are good lawyers and ambulance chaser lawyers. There are lawyers who will take any case just to make a buck. Being a smart lawyer has nothing to do with it. Greed has more to do with it. Unless they are a high profile lawyer, they don't care what kind of case they take.. it makes them money. Again, bullcheeze. What law is on the books that makes Disney responsible for a kid riding a bicycle in the street, losing control of his bicycle, and swerving in front of a bus? Falsely suing someone doesn't carry sheeze for penalty. I don't know w

No, actually, in Georgia, it's a right. It's guaranteed by the state Constitution. There is no guarantee by the United States Constitutions, being that voting a function of the state. I don't know about other states, but I would be surprised if the majority of them do not replicate the voting *rights* portion of their own Constitution with that of other states. With all the other arguments... it's just silly to think that people can't go get a free ID made. Last time I was at the voting office at Paulding, THEY were making ID's for people who didn't have drivers licenses. If

Disney chose not to go to court because it would have cost more money than to settle. ...and you say the "rich" have the poor and middle class by the balls? Think about it... Disney took the less expensive alternative. If they would have gone to court and won, it still took money out of their pocket. Now, let's say Disney sues these people to recover their cost. What do you think the news media is going to do to that story? Disney is going to be made out to be a villain for picking on these poor unfortunate people, especially just after they lost a child. Who's got who by th

Absolutely amazing. It's simply bewildering at how many people do not believe in personal responsibility anymore.

Then Disney should be counter suing this family to recoup the costs of the frivolous lawsuit. By suing Disney for something that wasn't Disney's fault (supposedly), this family caused Disney 'unfair' monetary harm.

Don't forget about getting to the gas station to buy the lottery tickets with their EBT cards & food stamps!

Well... we must be more specific when defining "Constitution." Voting is not a right in the United States Constitution. However, voting is not instituted by the Federal government, it's instituted by the state. The Constitution of the State of Georgia DOES provide the right to vote by any person who is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Georgia. The only exceptions that would provide revocation to vote under the Georgia Constitution are a person convicted of a felony or a person who has been "judicially determined to be mentally incompetent." So, if y

Obviously, from what others have said, they have two separate trucks, but two separate trucks are not required. There are many trash companies that have trucks that have the 'cargo' area divided in to sections. Household garbage and general trash goes in one section, recycled bottles & plastics go in another, cans and such go in a separate section, and then yard clippings and such go in a separate section. These types of trucks and 4 way separating of recyclables are very popular out in the far western states. These trucks are also single manned trucks. They have large driv

Welcome to modern day society. Sickening isn't it? As a whole, people refuse to take responsibility for their own actions and always want to blame someone else for their problems & failures. I'm with you 100% on "loser pays." After a few of those where the knuckleheads end up owing the government a few hundred-thousand dollars, people might start getting the picture. On another note, it would be nice to have a not so politically correct judicial system too. If judges would pass sentences that mean business instead of slapping the hands of frivolous law suites and/or re

That happens a LOT on here. I love how people claim to be so patriotic and 'for America,' yet they want to bypass our whole legal system when something like this happens.

Who said anything about the supreme court? And in a murder trial, it is very unlikely there will be a judge deciding guilt. Anyone being brought up on murder that asks for a judge trial would be crazy. In most all cases, murder trials are jury trials... It's not based on 1 man/woman's perception... guilt is based on the unanimous perception of twelve of your civic peers. It's that whole, "reasonable doubt" thing... I didn't say that you didn't. But everyone who reads what you write also has the freedom to not believe what you post to be the truth... especially when two t

What gets me about this whole "organic" thing... along with the "synthetic" thing... as well as the other nomenclatures is that there is nothing that man puts on a plant or grows in a lab that is not truly organic. EVERYTHING that is on this earth is organic. It has come from the earth (or space) in some form or another. Synthetic oil, conjured up pesticides, 'organic food', etc... it's all made from ingredients found in or on the earth. If I manipulate a molecule and combine it with other molecules to make something, the base of that product is still organic. There is

Here's a thought. Why don't we wait for the facts of the case to come out before sentencing this man to life in prison. It doesn't matter what kind of person she "was" when you went to school with her. People change and people do crazy stuff... people who were generally good people, in the past. If he's guilt of murder, without just cause, absolutely, lock him up permanently, or better yet... send his sorry ass to the lethal injection chamber. If he's innocent or it was truly a case of self defense, more power to him. I will wait until the investigation is complete, the

Nobody said anything about you posting an article. But, only going by what you posted... your thread title said that he stated he was in defense of himself. Nothing in the story that you posted said that. To make it more clear, you could have posted the article and then stated that you heard on TV that he stated that. Otherwise, going by what you posted, you were making speculation that he stated he was defending himself. When you make a statement, your article (proof) needs to backup exactly what you stated. Otherwise, it's hearsay. As far as I'm concerned, I do

Probably because the article that you posted didn't say a word about him claiming self defense. The title of your post DID say that he claimed that... but you posted an article that said nothing of the sort. Believe it or not, a lot of people aren't sitting at home in the middle of the day, watching TV. So, simply going by what you posted... what do you expect people to think.... especially when a large percentage of the P.com population tends to over-react and pre-judge circumstances before they know all the facts.