Coca-Cola required ID in 2020 shareholder meeting, but slams Georgia for voter ID law

[struth]

Coke is one of the worst things a human can put in their body according to most heart doctors. Why not put a warning on the label? I mean, if Coke is so upstanding and worried about what's right and what's wrong, you would think they would voluntarily warn people that their product is killing them.

I've stopped using it as a mixer quite some time ago. I found that I've lost weight, and better yet the money I saved from buying that coke, added up so that I could buy better bourbon

 

[frigidweirdo]

Hypocrites.

It's so important to protect the sanctity of our shareholders and keep the riff raff out, but, the sanctity of your vote is not important to us.

Coca-Cola required ID in 2020 shareholder meeting, but slams Georgia for voter ID law

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.

www.foxbusiness.com

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.


“At the entrance to the meeting, we will verify your registration and request to see your admission ticket and a valid form of photo identification, such as a driver’s license or passport,” the company wrote in reference to its 2020 annual meeting of shareholders, held before the coronavirus pandemic.

Georgia’s new voting law requires a drivers’ license or state ID number be listed to submit an absentee ballot to vote, among other new reforms. The state already required ID to vote in person. It had previously relied on signature matching to verify ballots.

Coca-Cola is based in Atlanta. This week, the beverage company, among other Georgia-based companies, issued statements condemning the new legislation after threats of boycott.

I suppose a Coca-Cola board meeting is a right then.

Since voting is a right, you have to make sure those doing it actually are entitled to that right. Non-citizens do not have that right, so verification of citizenship is a logical prerequisite.

Attending a shareholders’ meeting is not a ‘right,’ however – hence the false comparison fallacy.

it is certainly a right..you have the right to own property in this country...that includes a company, or shares of a company. If you own shares of a company you have a right to go to share holder meetings.

Obviously, Coke who thinks minorities are too stupid to get an ID, also doesn't want them owning or partaking in company policies.

Wrong.

Constitutional rights concern solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons or private entities.

Coca-Cola is not government, it is a private entity.

The state of Georgia is government, subject to Constitutional restrictions – such as being prohibited from placing an undue burden to the right to vote.

Well, rights are, generally, defined as a power that the government doesn't have and you do, and are protected from government intrusion.

Literally the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights were a power grab against the

Hypocrites.

It's so important to protect the sanctity of our shareholders and keep the riff raff out, but, the sanctity of your vote is not important to us.

Coca-Cola required ID in 2020 shareholder meeting, but slams Georgia for voter ID law

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.

www.foxbusiness.com

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.


“At the entrance to the meeting, we will verify your registration and request to see your admission ticket and a valid form of photo identification, such as a driver’s license or passport,” the company wrote in reference to its 2020 annual meeting of shareholders, held before the coronavirus pandemic.

Georgia’s new voting law requires a drivers’ license or state ID number be listed to submit an absentee ballot to vote, among other new reforms. The state already required ID to vote in person. It had previously relied on signature matching to verify ballots.

Coca-Cola is based in Atlanta. This week, the beverage company, among other Georgia-based companies, issued statements condemning the new legislation after threats of boycott.

I suppose a Coca-Cola board meeting is a right then.

Since voting is a right, you have to make sure those doing it actually are entitled to that right. Non-citizens do not have that right, so verification of citizenship is a logical prerequisite.

Attending a shareholders’ meeting is not a ‘right,’ however – hence the false comparison fallacy.

it is certainly a right..you have the right to own property in this country...that includes a company, or shares of a company. If you own shares of a company you have a right to go to share holder meetings.

Obviously, Coke who thinks minorities are too stupid to get an ID, also doesn't want them owning or partaking in company policies.

Is it a RIGHT to own property? Or is it something that you can just do?

There's a big difference.

yes, you have the right to own property.

What do you think a "right" is?

Well, a right is a power taken from the people with power, usually the monarch or the government and given to the people.

People have a tendency of saying they have a right to everything and anything when it's not really a right.

Your first post, then sort of contradicts your second.

I agree that a right is something that individuals have and the Govt generally can not take away or limit without due proces
So yes, you have a right to own property.

As far as your second point, no rights do not come from Govt. at least not in our Country, or any free society.

Well, not really. Not sure which first post you're talking about. The first post was that attending a board meeting isn't a right. And it's not. It's just something you can do.

huh? what do you think a right is?

A right is a power that has been taken away from those with the most power.

huh? explain that?

A right has been taken away from someone with power? Everyone has rights, we are all born with them, we are all born free. Locke said it best, and you can find his influence directly in our Founders and Founding documents...we are born with certain unalienable rights, the rights to life, liberty, and right to property, or pursuit of happiness.

These rights aren't taken from anyone...we all of them inheritably

We're actually not born with rights.

Rights is a human construct. We've developed a nice little story around what rights are. Some claim they've from God, others claim they're there because we're human.

The reality is something different.

And I understand the theories behind rights, but I'm looking at the reality of rights.

Yes we are born free. The human construction is the limitations on that freedom...ie Govt.

Really? So a caveman was born and he could do whatever he wanted? If a lion came up to him and was like "yo, cavedude, I'm going to eat you", the cavedude could reply "nah, I was born free, feck off"?why

Sure...but that doesn't mean the lion couldn't still eat him.

Exactly.

The lion has POWER. The caveman has power too.

Is the caveman therefore "free"?

Not really. It's the problem with anarchism. If you have anarchy, people will step in and take power and impose it on others. So you end up with no anarchy anyway.

"freedom" is often an illusion. We're controlled by forces around us all the time regardless of whether it's normal people, government forces like the police, bosses, the system, whatever.

No one has ever been 100% free.

"Freedom" is relative. We look at China and say "they're not free", and they might look at you and say "well, look at your crime rate, how is that free?"

 

[struth]

Hypocrites.

It's so important to protect the sanctity of our shareholders and keep the riff raff out, but, the sanctity of your vote is not important to us.

Coca-Cola required ID in 2020 shareholder meeting, but slams Georgia for voter ID law

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.

www.foxbusiness.com

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.


“At the entrance to the meeting, we will verify your registration and request to see your admission ticket and a valid form of photo identification, such as a driver’s license or passport,” the company wrote in reference to its 2020 annual meeting of shareholders, held before the coronavirus pandemic.

Georgia’s new voting law requires a drivers’ license or state ID number be listed to submit an absentee ballot to vote, among other new reforms. The state already required ID to vote in person. It had previously relied on signature matching to verify ballots.

Coca-Cola is based in Atlanta. This week, the beverage company, among other Georgia-based companies, issued statements condemning the new legislation after threats of boycott.

I suppose a Coca-Cola board meeting is a right then.

Since voting is a right, you have to make sure those doing it actually are entitled to that right. Non-citizens do not have that right, so verification of citizenship is a logical prerequisite.

Attending a shareholders’ meeting is not a ‘right,’ however – hence the false comparison fallacy.

it is certainly a right..you have the right to own property in this country...that includes a company, or shares of a company. If you own shares of a company you have a right to go to share holder meetings.

Obviously, Coke who thinks minorities are too stupid to get an ID, also doesn't want them owning or partaking in company policies.

Is it a RIGHT to own property? Or is it something that you can just do?

There's a big difference.

yes, you have the right to own property.

What do you think a "right" is?

Please cite this in the Constitution. I won't hold my breath waiting.

Well, I'd suppose the 9th Amendment. This states there are rights that aren't written into the Constitution.

However it's all subjective. What is a right and what isn't a right when you're told that there isn't a body that defines all rights?

And if there's a right to own property, what are the limitations on this right?

Can the US government take away all property, as long as I am left with one item of property (therefore having property), or can they not take away any property?

The Govt can take away all your property, as along as there is Due Process of law. I am not sure what you mean by having one item of property...having a right to property, doesn't mean that you actually have property...it simply means you have the right to be able to go get it if you want it

Well, the right to keep arms, or the right to own weapons. Constitutionally as long as the government doesn't take away all of your weapons, leaves you with ONE, then it hasn't infringed upon the Constitutional right to keep arms.

It's a problem. If you have a right to own property, then owning one thing fulfills this requirement.

Well no...that's not true.

Owning something doesn't fullfill the requirement of a "right" - Rights don't come from the Govt.

What do you think a right is?

Well, rights come from somewhere.

Let's go back to the Magna Carta.

King John was the monarch of England and other bits and pieces, like Normandy.

He had absolute power. In theory at least. But everyone knows that power isn't just something that appears and is, you have to get your power from somewhere, and with kings of England it usually came from the major barons of regions in England, like Mercia.

So, as long as these barons accepted your power, you had power. If they didn't, you didn't have power.

And John, well John wasn't very good at being king. He lost a lot of land, and the barons didn't like him much. So they rebelled and the king was forced to accept the Magna Carta which gave the barons power which the king had had.

This power was called "rights".

Then you have the English Bill of Rights.

There was a king, James II. Some people didn't like him so they "invited" William of Orange to "invade". He did so and James diddled off to France. They were like "Well, you know, we want a monarch, but we don't want him having as much power as James had, so, here's the English Bill of Rights, don't like it? Then you can feck off, can't you?"

So they took some more power from the monarch. Though they were "rights" they weren't universal in any sense of the word. Mostly they were powers for important people.

So a right is merely power not in the hands of the government.

The issue here is what is "power".

Do I have the "right" to pick my nose? No. Why?

Because there never was a power to pick one's nose. So this power hasn't been taken from the government/monarch/dude in charge and given to the people.

The English believed in the Divine Right of Kings and that their power came from God.

Since then we had the Enlightenment, and our Founders adopted the theories of folks like John Locke that believed people are born free. We the people give up some of our soveignty to the State to give the State power. The people are born free...weather that comes from God, or whatever...it's the individual, not the State that has rights.

The Magna Carte is an example of people exercising their God given rights, and questioning the divine right theory

Well, there's no such thing as God, so that's out of the window straight away. We can call things "God given", but they're clearly human given.

People are "born free" in the same way that Harry Potter "exists". It happens because we decide it is so. The reality is that even in the US we're not "born free", we're not free until at least 16 years old, though usually 18 when we can make decisions for ourselves legally.

But again, I know the theory. That doesn't mean the theory is realistic. It's a nice theory, people get behind it, say it's true and it kind of has meaning. But what is it IN REALITY?

Pretty obvious what it is when we go back and time and dissect it.

Well that's fine if you don't believe in God, but many people, actually the vast majority of the people on Earth believe in a higher power....regardless though..whatever you want to call it, you are born free...even if you don't believe in God...you are born free.

Harry Potter exist because someone created him....folks are born free, because they are free. They certainly, at least in the United States, give up some of their soveigntiy to the State. To live in a society. The Govt however can't just come in and talk someone's freedom, or rights., at will...because the Govt didn't give those rights to the individual.

Of course it's realistic...it happens all the time in the this country...and has for centuries. Now it's true that there are some, that dislike that arrangment, and want to flip it....often leftist regimes do that

Well, are we talking about belief, or are we talking about what is real here?

Harry Potter "exists" because someone created him. If humans die out, Harry Potter will cease to exist, because humans don't exist. In fact he could die out before humans have died out if everyone forgets.

The same with rights. They exist because we exist. They've a nice story behind the mechanisms that actually make rights.

It's like having a plane, and making some nice story about why it flies using fairy dust or something. It's not real, but people believe the story anyway.

I am talking about what is real...being born free is real. I agree, they exist because we exist...we are born with them...that's my point!

I don't know anyone that believes planes fly because of fairy dust....

 

[j-mac]

Hypocrites.

It's so important to protect the sanctity of our shareholders and keep the riff raff out, but, the sanctity of your vote is not important to us.

Coca-Cola required ID in 2020 shareholder meeting, but slams Georgia for voter ID law

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.

www.foxbusiness.com

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.


“At the entrance to the meeting, we will verify your registration and request to see your admission ticket and a valid form of photo identification, such as a driver’s license or passport,” the company wrote in reference to its 2020 annual meeting of shareholders, held before the coronavirus pandemic.

Georgia’s new voting law requires a drivers’ license or state ID number be listed to submit an absentee ballot to vote, among other new reforms. The state already required ID to vote in person. It had previously relied on signature matching to verify ballots.

Coca-Cola is based in Atlanta. This week, the beverage company, among other Georgia-based companies, issued statements condemning the new legislation after threats of boycott.

I suppose a Coca-Cola board meeting is a right then.

Since voting is a right, you have to make sure those doing it actually are entitled to that right. Non-citizens do not have that right, so verification of citizenship is a logical prerequisite.

Attending a shareholders’ meeting is not a ‘right,’ however – hence the false comparison fallacy.

it is certainly a right..you have the right to own property in this country...that includes a company, or shares of a company. If you own shares of a company you have a right to go to share holder meetings.

Obviously, Coke who thinks minorities are too stupid to get an ID, also doesn't want them owning or partaking in company policies.

Is it a RIGHT to own property? Or is it something that you can just do?

There's a big difference.

yes, you have the right to own property.

What do you think a "right" is?

Please cite this in the Constitution. I won't hold my breath waiting.

Well, I'd suppose the 9th Amendment. This states there are rights that aren't written into the Constitution.

However it's all subjective. What is a right and what isn't a right when you're told that there isn't a body that defines all rights?

And if there's a right to own property, what are the limitations on this right?

Can the US government take away all property, as long as I am left with one item of property (therefore having property), or can they not take away any property?

The Govt can take away all your property, as along as there is Due Process of law. I am not sure what you mean by having one item of property...having a right to property, doesn't mean that you actually have property...it simply means you have the right to be able to go get it if you want it

Well, the right to keep arms, or the right to own weapons. Constitutionally as long as the government doesn't take away all of your weapons, leaves you with ONE, then it hasn't infringed upon the Constitutional right to keep arms.

It's a problem. If you have a right to own property, then owning one thing fulfills this requirement.

No, unless you can demonstrate a numerical requirement in the Constitution...

Well with the 2A, the Constitution say the government can't prevent people from owning weapons. If you have one weapon, have you been prevented from owning weapons? No. Because you own a weapon.

The Constitution explicitly states “The right to bear arms, shall NOT be infringed.” It doesn’t bear one arm, or any number, type, or caliber of arms. To do that you’d have to amend the Constitution...good luck.

 

[j-mac]

Hypocrites.

It's so important to protect the sanctity of our shareholders and keep the riff raff out, but, the sanctity of your vote is not important to us.

Coca-Cola required ID in 2020 shareholder meeting, but slams Georgia for voter ID law

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.

www.foxbusiness.com

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.


“At the entrance to the meeting, we will verify your registration and request to see your admission ticket and a valid form of photo identification, such as a driver’s license or passport,” the company wrote in reference to its 2020 annual meeting of shareholders, held before the coronavirus pandemic.

Georgia’s new voting law requires a drivers’ license or state ID number be listed to submit an absentee ballot to vote, among other new reforms. The state already required ID to vote in person. It had previously relied on signature matching to verify ballots.

Coca-Cola is based in Atlanta. This week, the beverage company, among other Georgia-based companies, issued statements condemning the new legislation after threats of boycott.

I suppose a Coca-Cola board meeting is a right then.

Since voting is a right, you have to make sure those doing it actually are entitled to that right. Non-citizens do not have that right, so verification of citizenship is a logical prerequisite.

Attending a shareholders’ meeting is not a ‘right,’ however – hence the false comparison fallacy.

it is certainly a right..you have the right to own property in this country...that includes a company, or shares of a company. If you own shares of a company you have a right to go to share holder meetings.

Obviously, Coke who thinks minorities are too stupid to get an ID, also doesn't want them owning or partaking in company policies.

Wrong.

Constitutional rights concern solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons or private entities.

Coca-Cola is not government, it is a private entity.

The state of Georgia is government, subject to Constitutional restrictions – such as being prohibited from placing an undue burden to the right to vote.

Well, rights are, generally, defined as a power that the government doesn't have and you do, and are protected from government intrusion.

Literally the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights were a power grab against the

Hypocrites.

It's so important to protect the sanctity of our shareholders and keep the riff raff out, but, the sanctity of your vote is not important to us.

Coca-Cola required ID in 2020 shareholder meeting, but slams Georgia for voter ID law

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.

www.foxbusiness.com

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.


“At the entrance to the meeting, we will verify your registration and request to see your admission ticket and a valid form of photo identification, such as a driver’s license or passport,” the company wrote in reference to its 2020 annual meeting of shareholders, held before the coronavirus pandemic.

Georgia’s new voting law requires a drivers’ license or state ID number be listed to submit an absentee ballot to vote, among other new reforms. The state already required ID to vote in person. It had previously relied on signature matching to verify ballots.

Coca-Cola is based in Atlanta. This week, the beverage company, among other Georgia-based companies, issued statements condemning the new legislation after threats of boycott.

I suppose a Coca-Cola board meeting is a right then.

Since voting is a right, you have to make sure those doing it actually are entitled to that right. Non-citizens do not have that right, so verification of citizenship is a logical prerequisite.

Attending a shareholders’ meeting is not a ‘right,’ however – hence the false comparison fallacy.

it is certainly a right..you have the right to own property in this country...that includes a company, or shares of a company. If you own shares of a company you have a right to go to share holder meetings.

Obviously, Coke who thinks minorities are too stupid to get an ID, also doesn't want them owning or partaking in company policies.

Is it a RIGHT to own property? Or is it something that you can just do?

There's a big difference.

yes, you have the right to own property.

What do you think a "right" is?

Well, a right is a power taken from the people with power, usually the monarch or the government and given to the people.

People have a tendency of saying they have a right to everything and anything when it's not really a right.

Your first post, then sort of contradicts your second.

I agree that a right is something that individuals have and the Govt generally can not take away or limit without due proces
So yes, you have a right to own property.

As far as your second point, no rights do not come from Govt. at least not in our Country, or any free society.

Well, not really. Not sure which first post you're talking about. The first post was that attending a board meeting isn't a right. And it's not. It's just something you can do.

huh? what do you think a right is?

A right is a power that has been taken away from those with the most power.

huh? explain that?

A right has been taken away from someone with power? Everyone has rights, we are all born with them, we are all born free. Locke said it best, and you can find his influence directly in our Founders and Founding documents...we are born with certain unalienable rights, the rights to life, liberty, and right to property, or pursuit of happiness.

These rights aren't taken from anyone...we all of them inheritably

We're actually not born with rights.

Rights is a human construct. We've developed a nice little story around what rights are. Some claim they've from God, others claim they're there because we're human.

The reality is something different.

And I understand the theories behind rights, but I'm looking at the reality of rights.

Yes we are born free. The human construction is the limitations on that freedom...ie Govt.

Really? So a caveman was born and he could do whatever he wanted? If a lion came up to him and was like "yo, cavedude, I'm going to eat you", the cavedude could reply "nah, I was born free, feck off"?why

Sure...but that doesn't mean the lion couldn't still eat him.

Exactly.

The lion has POWER. The caveman has power too.

Is the caveman therefore "free"?

Not really. It's the problem with anarchism. If you have anarchy, people will step in and take power and impose it on others. So you end up with no anarchy anyway.

"freedom" is often an illusion. We're controlled by forces around us all the time regardless of whether it's normal people, government forces like the police, bosses, the system, whatever.

No one has ever been 100% free.

"Freedom" is relative. We look at China and say "they're not free", and they might look at you and say "well, look at your crime rate, how is that free?"

Are you really saying that China’s system is better?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Hypocrites.

It's so important to protect the sanctity of our shareholders and keep the riff raff out, but, the sanctity of your vote is not important to us.

Coca-Cola required ID in 2020 shareholder meeting, but slams Georgia for voter ID law

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.

www.foxbusiness.com

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.


“At the entrance to the meeting, we will verify your registration and request to see your admission ticket and a valid form of photo identification, such as a driver’s license or passport,” the company wrote in reference to its 2020 annual meeting of shareholders, held before the coronavirus pandemic.

Georgia’s new voting law requires a drivers’ license or state ID number be listed to submit an absentee ballot to vote, among other new reforms. The state already required ID to vote in person. It had previously relied on signature matching to verify ballots.

Coca-Cola is based in Atlanta. This week, the beverage company, among other Georgia-based companies, issued statements condemning the new legislation after threats of boycott.

I suppose a Coca-Cola board meeting is a right then.

Since voting is a right, you have to make sure those doing it actually are entitled to that right. Non-citizens do not have that right, so verification of citizenship is a logical prerequisite.

Attending a shareholders’ meeting is not a ‘right,’ however – hence the false comparison fallacy.

it is certainly a right..you have the right to own property in this country...that includes a company, or shares of a company. If you own shares of a company you have a right to go to share holder meetings.

Obviously, Coke who thinks minorities are too stupid to get an ID, also doesn't want them owning or partaking in company policies.

Is it a RIGHT to own property? Or is it something that you can just do?

There's a big difference.

yes, you have the right to own property.

What do you think a "right" is?

Please cite this in the Constitution. I won't hold my breath waiting.

Well, I'd suppose the 9th Amendment. This states there are rights that aren't written into the Constitution.

However it's all subjective. What is a right and what isn't a right when you're told that there isn't a body that defines all rights?

And if there's a right to own property, what are the limitations on this right?

Can the US government take away all property, as long as I am left with one item of property (therefore having property), or can they not take away any property?

The Govt can take away all your property, as along as there is Due Process of law. I am not sure what you mean by having one item of property...having a right to property, doesn't mean that you actually have property...it simply means you have the right to be able to go get it if you want it

Well, the right to keep arms, or the right to own weapons. Constitutionally as long as the government doesn't take away all of your weapons, leaves you with ONE, then it hasn't infringed upon the Constitutional right to keep arms.

It's a problem. If you have a right to own property, then owning one thing fulfills this requirement.

Well no...that's not true.

Owning something doesn't fullfill the requirement of a "right" - Rights don't come from the Govt.

What do you think a right is?

Well, rights come from somewhere.

Let's go back to the Magna Carta.

King John was the monarch of England and other bits and pieces, like Normandy.

He had absolute power. In theory at least. But everyone knows that power isn't just something that appears and is, you have to get your power from somewhere, and with kings of England it usually came from the major barons of regions in England, like Mercia.

So, as long as these barons accepted your power, you had power. If they didn't, you didn't have power.

And John, well John wasn't very good at being king. He lost a lot of land, and the barons didn't like him much. So they rebelled and the king was forced to accept the Magna Carta which gave the barons power which the king had had.

This power was called "rights".

Then you have the English Bill of Rights.

There was a king, James II. Some people didn't like him so they "invited" William of Orange to "invade". He did so and James diddled off to France. They were like "Well, you know, we want a monarch, but we don't want him having as much power as James had, so, here's the English Bill of Rights, don't like it? Then you can feck off, can't you?"

So they took some more power from the monarch. Though they were "rights" they weren't universal in any sense of the word. Mostly they were powers for important people.

So a right is merely power not in the hands of the government.

The issue here is what is "power".

Do I have the "right" to pick my nose? No. Why?

Because there never was a power to pick one's nose. So this power hasn't been taken from the government/monarch/dude in charge and given to the people.

The English believed in the Divine Right of Kings and that their power came from God.

Since then we had the Enlightenment, and our Founders adopted the theories of folks like John Locke that believed people are born free. We the people give up some of our soveignty to the State to give the State power. The people are born free...weather that comes from God, or whatever...it's the individual, not the State that has rights.

The Magna Carte is an example of people exercising their God given rights, and questioning the divine right theory

Well, there's no such thing as God, so that's out of the window straight away. We can call things "God given", but they're clearly human given.

People are "born free" in the same way that Harry Potter "exists". It happens because we decide it is so. The reality is that even in the US we're not "born free", we're not free until at least 16 years old, though usually 18 when we can make decisions for ourselves legally.

But again, I know the theory. That doesn't mean the theory is realistic. It's a nice theory, people get behind it, say it's true and it kind of has meaning. But what is it IN REALITY?

Pretty obvious what it is when we go back and time and dissect it.

Well that's fine if you don't believe in God, but many people, actually the vast majority of the people on Earth believe in a higher power....regardless though..whatever you want to call it, you are born free...even if you don't believe in God...you are born free.

Harry Potter exist because someone created him....folks are born free, because they are free. They certainly, at least in the United States, give up some of their soveigntiy to the State. To live in a society. The Govt however can't just come in and talk someone's freedom, or rights., at will...because the Govt didn't give those rights to the individual.

Of course it's realistic...it happens all the time in the this country...and has for centuries. Now it's true that there are some, that dislike that arrangment, and want to flip it....often leftist regimes do that

Well, are we talking about belief, or are we talking about what is real here?

Harry Potter "exists" because someone created him. If humans die out, Harry Potter will cease to exist, because humans don't exist. In fact he could die out before humans have died out if everyone forgets.

The same with rights. They exist because we exist. They've a nice story behind the mechanisms that actually make rights.

It's like having a plane, and making some nice story about why it flies using fairy dust or something. It's not real, but people believe the story anyway.

I am talking about what is real...being born free is real. I agree, they exist because we exist...we are born with them...that's my point!

I don't know anyone that believes planes fly because of fairy dust....

Well, you're telling me it's real. But I'm not seeing it.

A zero year old baby has what power to do whatever it likes?

Almost no power at all. Legally it has no power at all. All power is in the hands of the parents, guardians or the government, or those who choose to take power, like people crashing cars into baby etc.

Your point is there's a story and you believe it.

My point about fairy dust was to prove a point. It doesn't matter whether you know anyone who believes this or not.

 

[j-mac]

Hypocrites.

It's so important to protect the sanctity of our shareholders and keep the riff raff out, but, the sanctity of your vote is not important to us.

Coca-Cola required ID in 2020 shareholder meeting, but slams Georgia for voter ID law

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.

www.foxbusiness.com

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.


“At the entrance to the meeting, we will verify your registration and request to see your admission ticket and a valid form of photo identification, such as a driver’s license or passport,” the company wrote in reference to its 2020 annual meeting of shareholders, held before the coronavirus pandemic.

Georgia’s new voting law requires a drivers’ license or state ID number be listed to submit an absentee ballot to vote, among other new reforms. The state already required ID to vote in person. It had previously relied on signature matching to verify ballots.

Coca-Cola is based in Atlanta. This week, the beverage company, among other Georgia-based companies, issued statements condemning the new legislation after threats of boycott.

I suppose a Coca-Cola board meeting is a right then.

Since voting is a right, you have to make sure those doing it actually are entitled to that right. Non-citizens do not have that right, so verification of citizenship is a logical prerequisite.

Attending a shareholders’ meeting is not a ‘right,’ however – hence the false comparison fallacy.

it is certainly a right..you have the right to own property in this country...that includes a company, or shares of a company. If you own shares of a company you have a right to go to share holder meetings.

Obviously, Coke who thinks minorities are too stupid to get an ID, also doesn't want them owning or partaking in company policies.

Is it a RIGHT to own property? Or is it something that you can just do?

There's a big difference.

yes, you have the right to own property.

What do you think a "right" is?

Please cite this in the Constitution. I won't hold my breath waiting.

Well, I'd suppose the 9th Amendment. This states there are rights that aren't written into the Constitution.

However it's all subjective. What is a right and what isn't a right when you're told that there isn't a body that defines all rights?

And if there's a right to own property, what are the limitations on this right?

Can the US government take away all property, as long as I am left with one item of property (therefore having property), or can they not take away any property?

The Govt can take away all your property, as along as there is Due Process of law. I am not sure what you mean by having one item of property...having a right to property, doesn't mean that you actually have property...it simply means you have the right to be able to go get it if you want it

Well, the right to keep arms, or the right to own weapons. Constitutionally as long as the government doesn't take away all of your weapons, leaves you with ONE, then it hasn't infringed upon the Constitutional right to keep arms.

It's a problem. If you have a right to own property, then owning one thing fulfills this requirement.

Well no...that's not true.

Owning something doesn't fullfill the requirement of a "right" - Rights don't come from the Govt.

What do you think a right is?

Well, rights come from somewhere.

Let's go back to the Magna Carta.

King John was the monarch of England and other bits and pieces, like Normandy.

He had absolute power. In theory at least. But everyone knows that power isn't just something that appears and is, you have to get your power from somewhere, and with kings of England it usually came from the major barons of regions in England, like Mercia.

So, as long as these barons accepted your power, you had power. If they didn't, you didn't have power.

And John, well John wasn't very good at being king. He lost a lot of land, and the barons didn't like him much. So they rebelled and the king was forced to accept the Magna Carta which gave the barons power which the king had had.

This power was called "rights".

Then you have the English Bill of Rights.

There was a king, James II. Some people didn't like him so they "invited" William of Orange to "invade". He did so and James diddled off to France. They were like "Well, you know, we want a monarch, but we don't want him having as much power as James had, so, here's the English Bill of Rights, don't like it? Then you can feck off, can't you?"

So they took some more power from the monarch. Though they were "rights" they weren't universal in any sense of the word. Mostly they were powers for important people.

So a right is merely power not in the hands of the government.

The issue here is what is "power".

Do I have the "right" to pick my nose? No. Why?

Because there never was a power to pick one's nose. So this power hasn't been taken from the government/monarch/dude in charge and given to the people.

The English believed in the Divine Right of Kings and that their power came from God.

Since then we had the Enlightenment, and our Founders adopted the theories of folks like John Locke that believed people are born free. We the people give up some of our soveignty to the State to give the State power. The people are born free...weather that comes from God, or whatever...it's the individual, not the State that has rights.

The Magna Carte is an example of people exercising their God given rights, and questioning the divine right theory

Well, there's no such thing as God, so that's out of the window straight away. We can call things "God given", but they're clearly human given.

People are "born free" in the same way that Harry Potter "exists". It happens because we decide it is so. The reality is that even in the US we're not "born free", we're not free until at least 16 years old, though usually 18 when we can make decisions for ourselves legally.

But again, I know the theory. That doesn't mean the theory is realistic. It's a nice theory, people get behind it, say it's true and it kind of has meaning. But what is it IN REALITY?

Pretty obvious what it is when we go back and time and dissect it.

Well that's fine if you don't believe in God, but many people, actually the vast majority of the people on Earth believe in a higher power....regardless though..whatever you want to call it, you are born free...even if you don't believe in God...you are born free.

Harry Potter exist because someone created him....folks are born free, because they are free. They certainly, at least in the United States, give up some of their soveigntiy to the State. To live in a society. The Govt however can't just come in and talk someone's freedom, or rights., at will...because the Govt didn't give those rights to the individual.

Of course it's realistic...it happens all the time in the this country...and has for centuries. Now it's true that there are some, that dislike that arrangment, and want to flip it....often leftist regimes do that

Well, are we talking about belief, or are we talking about what is real here?

Harry Potter "exists" because someone created him. If humans die out, Harry Potter will cease to exist, because humans don't exist. In fact he could die out before humans have died out if everyone forgets.

The same with rights. They exist because we exist. They've a nice story behind the mechanisms that actually make rights.

It's like having a plane, and making some nice story about why it flies using fairy dust or something. It's not real, but people believe the story anyway.

OMG....Thanks for identifying what’s wrong with our youth.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Hypocrites.

It's so important to protect the sanctity of our shareholders and keep the riff raff out, but, the sanctity of your vote is not important to us.

Coca-Cola required ID in 2020 shareholder meeting, but slams Georgia for voter ID law

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.

www.foxbusiness.com

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.


“At the entrance to the meeting, we will verify your registration and request to see your admission ticket and a valid form of photo identification, such as a driver’s license or passport,” the company wrote in reference to its 2020 annual meeting of shareholders, held before the coronavirus pandemic.

Georgia’s new voting law requires a drivers’ license or state ID number be listed to submit an absentee ballot to vote, among other new reforms. The state already required ID to vote in person. It had previously relied on signature matching to verify ballots.

Coca-Cola is based in Atlanta. This week, the beverage company, among other Georgia-based companies, issued statements condemning the new legislation after threats of boycott.

I suppose a Coca-Cola board meeting is a right then.

Since voting is a right, you have to make sure those doing it actually are entitled to that right. Non-citizens do not have that right, so verification of citizenship is a logical prerequisite.

Attending a shareholders’ meeting is not a ‘right,’ however – hence the false comparison fallacy.

it is certainly a right..you have the right to own property in this country...that includes a company, or shares of a company. If you own shares of a company you have a right to go to share holder meetings.

Obviously, Coke who thinks minorities are too stupid to get an ID, also doesn't want them owning or partaking in company policies.

Is it a RIGHT to own property? Or is it something that you can just do?

There's a big difference.

yes, you have the right to own property.

What do you think a "right" is?

Please cite this in the Constitution. I won't hold my breath waiting.

Well, I'd suppose the 9th Amendment. This states there are rights that aren't written into the Constitution.

However it's all subjective. What is a right and what isn't a right when you're told that there isn't a body that defines all rights?

And if there's a right to own property, what are the limitations on this right?

Can the US government take away all property, as long as I am left with one item of property (therefore having property), or can they not take away any property?

The Govt can take away all your property, as along as there is Due Process of law. I am not sure what you mean by having one item of property...having a right to property, doesn't mean that you actually have property...it simply means you have the right to be able to go get it if you want it

Well, the right to keep arms, or the right to own weapons. Constitutionally as long as the government doesn't take away all of your weapons, leaves you with ONE, then it hasn't infringed upon the Constitutional right to keep arms.

It's a problem. If you have a right to own property, then owning one thing fulfills this requirement.

No, unless you can demonstrate a numerical requirement in the Constitution...

Well with the 2A, the Constitution say the government can't prevent people from owning weapons. If you have one weapon, have you been prevented from owning weapons? No. Because you own a weapon.

The Constitution explicitly states “The right to bear arms, shall NOT be infringed.” It doesn’t bear one arm, or any number, type, or caliber of arms. To do that you’d have to amend the Constitution...good luck.

Yeah "shall not be infringed". But they've infringed upon it every single day of the 2A's life.

Prisons have their weapons taken off them ALL THE TIME.

And we're not talking about "bear arms" here. We're talking about "keep arms", two separate Constitutional rights.

The 2A is a LIMIT on the power of the government. That's all it is.

The 2A says the US government cannot stop individuals from owning weapons. The US govt stops people owning SAMs, nukes and all manner of weapons ALL THE TIME.

Are you suggesting this is unconstitutional?

If you have a gun, one gun, has the US government prevented you from owning a gun?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Hypocrites.

It's so important to protect the sanctity of our shareholders and keep the riff raff out, but, the sanctity of your vote is not important to us.

Coca-Cola required ID in 2020 shareholder meeting, but slams Georgia for voter ID law

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.

www.foxbusiness.com

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.


“At the entrance to the meeting, we will verify your registration and request to see your admission ticket and a valid form of photo identification, such as a driver’s license or passport,” the company wrote in reference to its 2020 annual meeting of shareholders, held before the coronavirus pandemic.

Georgia’s new voting law requires a drivers’ license or state ID number be listed to submit an absentee ballot to vote, among other new reforms. The state already required ID to vote in person. It had previously relied on signature matching to verify ballots.

Coca-Cola is based in Atlanta. This week, the beverage company, among other Georgia-based companies, issued statements condemning the new legislation after threats of boycott.

I suppose a Coca-Cola board meeting is a right then.

Since voting is a right, you have to make sure those doing it actually are entitled to that right. Non-citizens do not have that right, so verification of citizenship is a logical prerequisite.

Attending a shareholders’ meeting is not a ‘right,’ however – hence the false comparison fallacy.

it is certainly a right..you have the right to own property in this country...that includes a company, or shares of a company. If you own shares of a company you have a right to go to share holder meetings.

Obviously, Coke who thinks minorities are too stupid to get an ID, also doesn't want them owning or partaking in company policies.

Wrong.

Constitutional rights concern solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons or private entities.

Coca-Cola is not government, it is a private entity.

The state of Georgia is government, subject to Constitutional restrictions – such as being prohibited from placing an undue burden to the right to vote.

Well, rights are, generally, defined as a power that the government doesn't have and you do, and are protected from government intrusion.

Literally the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights were a power grab against the

Hypocrites.

It's so important to protect the sanctity of our shareholders and keep the riff raff out, but, the sanctity of your vote is not important to us.

Coca-Cola required ID in 2020 shareholder meeting, but slams Georgia for voter ID law

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.

www.foxbusiness.com

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.


“At the entrance to the meeting, we will verify your registration and request to see your admission ticket and a valid form of photo identification, such as a driver’s license or passport,” the company wrote in reference to its 2020 annual meeting of shareholders, held before the coronavirus pandemic.

Georgia’s new voting law requires a drivers’ license or state ID number be listed to submit an absentee ballot to vote, among other new reforms. The state already required ID to vote in person. It had previously relied on signature matching to verify ballots.

Coca-Cola is based in Atlanta. This week, the beverage company, among other Georgia-based companies, issued statements condemning the new legislation after threats of boycott.

I suppose a Coca-Cola board meeting is a right then.

Since voting is a right, you have to make sure those doing it actually are entitled to that right. Non-citizens do not have that right, so verification of citizenship is a logical prerequisite.

Attending a shareholders’ meeting is not a ‘right,’ however – hence the false comparison fallacy.

it is certainly a right..you have the right to own property in this country...that includes a company, or shares of a company. If you own shares of a company you have a right to go to share holder meetings.

Obviously, Coke who thinks minorities are too stupid to get an ID, also doesn't want them owning or partaking in company policies.

Is it a RIGHT to own property? Or is it something that you can just do?

There's a big difference.

yes, you have the right to own property.

What do you think a "right" is?

Well, a right is a power taken from the people with power, usually the monarch or the government and given to the people.

People have a tendency of saying they have a right to everything and anything when it's not really a right.

Your first post, then sort of contradicts your second.

I agree that a right is something that individuals have and the Govt generally can not take away or limit without due proces
So yes, you have a right to own property.

As far as your second point, no rights do not come from Govt. at least not in our Country, or any free society.

Well, not really. Not sure which first post you're talking about. The first post was that attending a board meeting isn't a right. And it's not. It's just something you can do.

huh? what do you think a right is?

A right is a power that has been taken away from those with the most power.

huh? explain that?

A right has been taken away from someone with power? Everyone has rights, we are all born with them, we are all born free. Locke said it best, and you can find his influence directly in our Founders and Founding documents...we are born with certain unalienable rights, the rights to life, liberty, and right to property, or pursuit of happiness.

These rights aren't taken from anyone...we all of them inheritably

We're actually not born with rights.

Rights is a human construct. We've developed a nice little story around what rights are. Some claim they've from God, others claim they're there because we're human.

The reality is something different.

And I understand the theories behind rights, but I'm looking at the reality of rights.

Yes we are born free. The human construction is the limitations on that freedom...ie Govt.

Really? So a caveman was born and he could do whatever he wanted? If a lion came up to him and was like "yo, cavedude, I'm going to eat you", the cavedude could reply "nah, I was born free, feck off"?why

Sure...but that doesn't mean the lion couldn't still eat him.

Exactly.

The lion has POWER. The caveman has power too.

Is the caveman therefore "free"?

Not really. It's the problem with anarchism. If you have anarchy, people will step in and take power and impose it on others. So you end up with no anarchy anyway.

"freedom" is often an illusion. We're controlled by forces around us all the time regardless of whether it's normal people, government forces like the police, bosses, the system, whatever.

No one has ever been 100% free.

"Freedom" is relative. We look at China and say "they're not free", and they might look at you and say "well, look at your crime rate, how is that free?"

Are you really saying that China’s system is better?

Did you see me write "China's system is better"? If not, then no, I'm not saying that.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Hypocrites.

It's so important to protect the sanctity of our shareholders and keep the riff raff out, but, the sanctity of your vote is not important to us.

Coca-Cola required ID in 2020 shareholder meeting, but slams Georgia for voter ID law

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.

www.foxbusiness.com

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.


“At the entrance to the meeting, we will verify your registration and request to see your admission ticket and a valid form of photo identification, such as a driver’s license or passport,” the company wrote in reference to its 2020 annual meeting of shareholders, held before the coronavirus pandemic.

Georgia’s new voting law requires a drivers’ license or state ID number be listed to submit an absentee ballot to vote, among other new reforms. The state already required ID to vote in person. It had previously relied on signature matching to verify ballots.

Coca-Cola is based in Atlanta. This week, the beverage company, among other Georgia-based companies, issued statements condemning the new legislation after threats of boycott.

I suppose a Coca-Cola board meeting is a right then.

Since voting is a right, you have to make sure those doing it actually are entitled to that right. Non-citizens do not have that right, so verification of citizenship is a logical prerequisite.

Attending a shareholders’ meeting is not a ‘right,’ however – hence the false comparison fallacy.

it is certainly a right..you have the right to own property in this country...that includes a company, or shares of a company. If you own shares of a company you have a right to go to share holder meetings.

Obviously, Coke who thinks minorities are too stupid to get an ID, also doesn't want them owning or partaking in company policies.

Is it a RIGHT to own property? Or is it something that you can just do?

There's a big difference.

yes, you have the right to own property.

What do you think a "right" is?

Please cite this in the Constitution. I won't hold my breath waiting.

Well, I'd suppose the 9th Amendment. This states there are rights that aren't written into the Constitution.

However it's all subjective. What is a right and what isn't a right when you're told that there isn't a body that defines all rights?

And if there's a right to own property, what are the limitations on this right?

Can the US government take away all property, as long as I am left with one item of property (therefore having property), or can they not take away any property?

The Govt can take away all your property, as along as there is Due Process of law. I am not sure what you mean by having one item of property...having a right to property, doesn't mean that you actually have property...it simply means you have the right to be able to go get it if you want it

Well, the right to keep arms, or the right to own weapons. Constitutionally as long as the government doesn't take away all of your weapons, leaves you with ONE, then it hasn't infringed upon the Constitutional right to keep arms.

It's a problem. If you have a right to own property, then owning one thing fulfills this requirement.

Well no...that's not true.

Owning something doesn't fullfill the requirement of a "right" - Rights don't come from the Govt.

What do you think a right is?

Well, rights come from somewhere.

Let's go back to the Magna Carta.

King John was the monarch of England and other bits and pieces, like Normandy.

He had absolute power. In theory at least. But everyone knows that power isn't just something that appears and is, you have to get your power from somewhere, and with kings of England it usually came from the major barons of regions in England, like Mercia.

So, as long as these barons accepted your power, you had power. If they didn't, you didn't have power.

And John, well John wasn't very good at being king. He lost a lot of land, and the barons didn't like him much. So they rebelled and the king was forced to accept the Magna Carta which gave the barons power which the king had had.

This power was called "rights".

Then you have the English Bill of Rights.

There was a king, James II. Some people didn't like him so they "invited" William of Orange to "invade". He did so and James diddled off to France. They were like "Well, you know, we want a monarch, but we don't want him having as much power as James had, so, here's the English Bill of Rights, don't like it? Then you can feck off, can't you?"

So they took some more power from the monarch. Though they were "rights" they weren't universal in any sense of the word. Mostly they were powers for important people.

So a right is merely power not in the hands of the government.

The issue here is what is "power".

Do I have the "right" to pick my nose? No. Why?

Because there never was a power to pick one's nose. So this power hasn't been taken from the government/monarch/dude in charge and given to the people.

The English believed in the Divine Right of Kings and that their power came from God.

Since then we had the Enlightenment, and our Founders adopted the theories of folks like John Locke that believed people are born free. We the people give up some of our soveignty to the State to give the State power. The people are born free...weather that comes from God, or whatever...it's the individual, not the State that has rights.

The Magna Carte is an example of people exercising their God given rights, and questioning the divine right theory

Well, there's no such thing as God, so that's out of the window straight away. We can call things "God given", but they're clearly human given.

People are "born free" in the same way that Harry Potter "exists". It happens because we decide it is so. The reality is that even in the US we're not "born free", we're not free until at least 16 years old, though usually 18 when we can make decisions for ourselves legally.

But again, I know the theory. That doesn't mean the theory is realistic. It's a nice theory, people get behind it, say it's true and it kind of has meaning. But what is it IN REALITY?

Pretty obvious what it is when we go back and time and dissect it.

Well that's fine if you don't believe in God, but many people, actually the vast majority of the people on Earth believe in a higher power....regardless though..whatever you want to call it, you are born free...even if you don't believe in God...you are born free.

Harry Potter exist because someone created him....folks are born free, because they are free. They certainly, at least in the United States, give up some of their soveigntiy to the State. To live in a society. The Govt however can't just come in and talk someone's freedom, or rights., at will...because the Govt didn't give those rights to the individual.

Of course it's realistic...it happens all the time in the this country...and has for centuries. Now it's true that there are some, that dislike that arrangment, and want to flip it....often leftist regimes do that

Well, are we talking about belief, or are we talking about what is real here?

Harry Potter "exists" because someone created him. If humans die out, Harry Potter will cease to exist, because humans don't exist. In fact he could die out before humans have died out if everyone forgets.

The same with rights. They exist because we exist. They've a nice story behind the mechanisms that actually make rights.

It's like having a plane, and making some nice story about why it flies using fairy dust or something. It's not real, but people believe the story anyway.

OMG....Thanks for identifying what’s wrong with our youth.

I'm not really interested in pointless comments.

 

[struth]

Hypocrites.

It's so important to protect the sanctity of our shareholders and keep the riff raff out, but, the sanctity of your vote is not important to us.

Coca-Cola required ID in 2020 shareholder meeting, but slams Georgia for voter ID law

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.

www.foxbusiness.com

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.


“At the entrance to the meeting, we will verify your registration and request to see your admission ticket and a valid form of photo identification, such as a driver’s license or passport,” the company wrote in reference to its 2020 annual meeting of shareholders, held before the coronavirus pandemic.

Georgia’s new voting law requires a drivers’ license or state ID number be listed to submit an absentee ballot to vote, among other new reforms. The state already required ID to vote in person. It had previously relied on signature matching to verify ballots.

Coca-Cola is based in Atlanta. This week, the beverage company, among other Georgia-based companies, issued statements condemning the new legislation after threats of boycott.

I suppose a Coca-Cola board meeting is a right then.

Since voting is a right, you have to make sure those doing it actually are entitled to that right. Non-citizens do not have that right, so verification of citizenship is a logical prerequisite.

Attending a shareholders’ meeting is not a ‘right,’ however – hence the false comparison fallacy.

it is certainly a right..you have the right to own property in this country...that includes a company, or shares of a company. If you own shares of a company you have a right to go to share holder meetings.

Obviously, Coke who thinks minorities are too stupid to get an ID, also doesn't want them owning or partaking in company policies.

Wrong.

Constitutional rights concern solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons or private entities.

Coca-Cola is not government, it is a private entity.

The state of Georgia is government, subject to Constitutional restrictions – such as being prohibited from placing an undue burden to the right to vote.

Well, rights are, generally, defined as a power that the government doesn't have and you do, and are protected from government intrusion.

Literally the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights were a power grab against the

Hypocrites.

It's so important to protect the sanctity of our shareholders and keep the riff raff out, but, the sanctity of your vote is not important to us.

Coca-Cola required ID in 2020 shareholder meeting, but slams Georgia for voter ID law

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.

www.foxbusiness.com

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.


“At the entrance to the meeting, we will verify your registration and request to see your admission ticket and a valid form of photo identification, such as a driver’s license or passport,” the company wrote in reference to its 2020 annual meeting of shareholders, held before the coronavirus pandemic.

Georgia’s new voting law requires a drivers’ license or state ID number be listed to submit an absentee ballot to vote, among other new reforms. The state already required ID to vote in person. It had previously relied on signature matching to verify ballots.

Coca-Cola is based in Atlanta. This week, the beverage company, among other Georgia-based companies, issued statements condemning the new legislation after threats of boycott.

I suppose a Coca-Cola board meeting is a right then.

Since voting is a right, you have to make sure those doing it actually are entitled to that right. Non-citizens do not have that right, so verification of citizenship is a logical prerequisite.

Attending a shareholders’ meeting is not a ‘right,’ however – hence the false comparison fallacy.

it is certainly a right..you have the right to own property in this country...that includes a company, or shares of a company. If you own shares of a company you have a right to go to share holder meetings.

Obviously, Coke who thinks minorities are too stupid to get an ID, also doesn't want them owning or partaking in company policies.

Is it a RIGHT to own property? Or is it something that you can just do?

There's a big difference.

yes, you have the right to own property.

What do you think a "right" is?

Well, a right is a power taken from the people with power, usually the monarch or the government and given to the people.

People have a tendency of saying they have a right to everything and anything when it's not really a right.

Your first post, then sort of contradicts your second.

I agree that a right is something that individuals have and the Govt generally can not take away or limit without due proces
So yes, you have a right to own property.

As far as your second point, no rights do not come from Govt. at least not in our Country, or any free society.

Well, not really. Not sure which first post you're talking about. The first post was that attending a board meeting isn't a right. And it's not. It's just something you can do.

huh? what do you think a right is?

A right is a power that has been taken away from those with the most power.

huh? explain that?

A right has been taken away from someone with power? Everyone has rights, we are all born with them, we are all born free. Locke said it best, and you can find his influence directly in our Founders and Founding documents...we are born with certain unalienable rights, the rights to life, liberty, and right to property, or pursuit of happiness.

These rights aren't taken from anyone...we all of them inheritably

We're actually not born with rights.

Rights is a human construct. We've developed a nice little story around what rights are. Some claim they've from God, others claim they're there because we're human.

The reality is something different.

And I understand the theories behind rights, but I'm looking at the reality of rights.

Yes we are born free. The human construction is the limitations on that freedom...ie Govt.

Really? So a caveman was born and he could do whatever he wanted? If a lion came up to him and was like "yo, cavedude, I'm going to eat you", the cavedude could reply "nah, I was born free, feck off"?why

Sure...but that doesn't mean the lion couldn't still eat him.

Exactly.

The lion has POWER. The caveman has power too.

Is the caveman therefore "free"?

Not really. It's the problem with anarchism. If you have anarchy, people will step in and take power and impose it on others. So you end up with no anarchy anyway.

"freedom" is often an illusion. We're controlled by forces around us all the time regardless of whether it's normal people, government forces like the police, bosses, the system, whatever.

No one has ever been 100% free.

"Freedom" is relative. We look at China and say "they're not free", and they might look at you and say "well, look at your crime rate, how is that free?"

Sure he's free. Being free doesn't mean that someone can't take that freedom from you. There are tons of people in jail or prison right now...they were born free..nonetheless...but before the Govt took their freedom from them, they were given the highest level of Due Process

Lions, tigers and bears can kill anyone...they are wild animals.

Here's a better example of reality...a group of cavemen get together, they are sick of lions killing their kids. They say, look...why don't we all agree to work together. We have to take shifts to protect and stay on watch....we need to get together and work on making spears etc etc...the cavemen agree to give up some of their freedom to work together in a society.

I am not sure what crime rate has to do with freedom. People are born free, and give up some of their soveighity to live in a society, that society creates laws...ie don't steal...the crime is then stealing...the person makes that choice to steal, and then has all the due process before the Govt can take their liberty

In China, not so much...in China, like a lot of leftist regimes...their only existance comes from the State or party....

 

[frigidweirdo]

Hypocrites.

It's so important to protect the sanctity of our shareholders and keep the riff raff out, but, the sanctity of your vote is not important to us.

Coca-Cola required ID in 2020 shareholder meeting, but slams Georgia for voter ID law

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.

www.foxbusiness.com

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.


“At the entrance to the meeting, we will verify your registration and request to see your admission ticket and a valid form of photo identification, such as a driver’s license or passport,” the company wrote in reference to its 2020 annual meeting of shareholders, held before the coronavirus pandemic.

Georgia’s new voting law requires a drivers’ license or state ID number be listed to submit an absentee ballot to vote, among other new reforms. The state already required ID to vote in person. It had previously relied on signature matching to verify ballots.

Coca-Cola is based in Atlanta. This week, the beverage company, among other Georgia-based companies, issued statements condemning the new legislation after threats of boycott.

I suppose a Coca-Cola board meeting is a right then.

Since voting is a right, you have to make sure those doing it actually are entitled to that right. Non-citizens do not have that right, so verification of citizenship is a logical prerequisite.

Attending a shareholders’ meeting is not a ‘right,’ however – hence the false comparison fallacy.

it is certainly a right..you have the right to own property in this country...that includes a company, or shares of a company. If you own shares of a company you have a right to go to share holder meetings.

Obviously, Coke who thinks minorities are too stupid to get an ID, also doesn't want them owning or partaking in company policies.

Wrong.

Constitutional rights concern solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons or private entities.

Coca-Cola is not government, it is a private entity.

The state of Georgia is government, subject to Constitutional restrictions – such as being prohibited from placing an undue burden to the right to vote.

Well, rights are, generally, defined as a power that the government doesn't have and you do, and are protected from government intrusion.

Literally the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights were a power grab against the

Hypocrites.

It's so important to protect the sanctity of our shareholders and keep the riff raff out, but, the sanctity of your vote is not important to us.

Coca-Cola required ID in 2020 shareholder meeting, but slams Georgia for voter ID law

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.

www.foxbusiness.com

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.


“At the entrance to the meeting, we will verify your registration and request to see your admission ticket and a valid form of photo identification, such as a driver’s license or passport,” the company wrote in reference to its 2020 annual meeting of shareholders, held before the coronavirus pandemic.

Georgia’s new voting law requires a drivers’ license or state ID number be listed to submit an absentee ballot to vote, among other new reforms. The state already required ID to vote in person. It had previously relied on signature matching to verify ballots.

Coca-Cola is based in Atlanta. This week, the beverage company, among other Georgia-based companies, issued statements condemning the new legislation after threats of boycott.

I suppose a Coca-Cola board meeting is a right then.

Since voting is a right, you have to make sure those doing it actually are entitled to that right. Non-citizens do not have that right, so verification of citizenship is a logical prerequisite.

Attending a shareholders’ meeting is not a ‘right,’ however – hence the false comparison fallacy.

it is certainly a right..you have the right to own property in this country...that includes a company, or shares of a company. If you own shares of a company you have a right to go to share holder meetings.

Obviously, Coke who thinks minorities are too stupid to get an ID, also doesn't want them owning or partaking in company policies.

Is it a RIGHT to own property? Or is it something that you can just do?

There's a big difference.

yes, you have the right to own property.

What do you think a "right" is?

Well, a right is a power taken from the people with power, usually the monarch or the government and given to the people.

People have a tendency of saying they have a right to everything and anything when it's not really a right.

Your first post, then sort of contradicts your second.

I agree that a right is something that individuals have and the Govt generally can not take away or limit without due proces
So yes, you have a right to own property.

As far as your second point, no rights do not come from Govt. at least not in our Country, or any free society.

Well, not really. Not sure which first post you're talking about. The first post was that attending a board meeting isn't a right. And it's not. It's just something you can do.

huh? what do you think a right is?

A right is a power that has been taken away from those with the most power.

huh? explain that?

A right has been taken away from someone with power? Everyone has rights, we are all born with them, we are all born free. Locke said it best, and you can find his influence directly in our Founders and Founding documents...we are born with certain unalienable rights, the rights to life, liberty, and right to property, or pursuit of happiness.

These rights aren't taken from anyone...we all of them inheritably

We're actually not born with rights.

Rights is a human construct. We've developed a nice little story around what rights are. Some claim they've from God, others claim they're there because we're human.

The reality is something different.

And I understand the theories behind rights, but I'm looking at the reality of rights.

Yes we are born free. The human construction is the limitations on that freedom...ie Govt.

Really? So a caveman was born and he could do whatever he wanted? If a lion came up to him and was like "yo, cavedude, I'm going to eat you", the cavedude could reply "nah, I was born free, feck off"?why

Sure...but that doesn't mean the lion couldn't still eat him.

Exactly.

The lion has POWER. The caveman has power too.

Is the caveman therefore "free"?

Not really. It's the problem with anarchism. If you have anarchy, people will step in and take power and impose it on others. So you end up with no anarchy anyway.

"freedom" is often an illusion. We're controlled by forces around us all the time regardless of whether it's normal people, government forces like the police, bosses, the system, whatever.

No one has ever been 100% free.

"Freedom" is relative. We look at China and say "they're not free", and they might look at you and say "well, look at your crime rate, how is that free?"

Sure he's free. Being free doesn't mean that someone can't take that freedom from you. There are tons of people in jail or prison right now...they were born free..nonetheless...but before the Govt took their freedom from them, they were given the highest level of Due Process

Lions, tigers and bears can kill anyone...they are wild animals.

Here's a better example of reality...a group of cavemen get together, they are sick of lions killing their kids. They say, look...why don't we all agree to work together. We have to take shifts to protect and stay on watch....we need to get together and work on making spears etc etc...the cavemen agree to give up some of their freedom to work together in a society.

I am not sure what crime rate has to do with freedom. People are born free, and give up some of their soveighity to live in a society, that society creates laws...ie don't steal...the crime is then stealing...the person makes that choice to steal, and then has all the due process before the Govt can take their liberty

In China, not so much...in China, like a lot of leftist regimes...their only existance comes from the State or party....

So what is free?

As for the cavemen, how many were BORN free? How many, at birth, said "yeah, I give up some of my freedom for security"?

Or is it that you're born having already given up freedom for security, and you have no choice but to accept it?

So, how does a person's existence come from the State or the party, but in the US it isn't so?

What's the difference, I don't see it.

 

[j-mac]

Hypocrites.

It's so important to protect the sanctity of our shareholders and keep the riff raff out, but, the sanctity of your vote is not important to us.

Coca-Cola required ID in 2020 shareholder meeting, but slams Georgia for voter ID law

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.

www.foxbusiness.com

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.


“At the entrance to the meeting, we will verify your registration and request to see your admission ticket and a valid form of photo identification, such as a driver’s license or passport,” the company wrote in reference to its 2020 annual meeting of shareholders, held before the coronavirus pandemic.

Georgia’s new voting law requires a drivers’ license or state ID number be listed to submit an absentee ballot to vote, among other new reforms. The state already required ID to vote in person. It had previously relied on signature matching to verify ballots.

Coca-Cola is based in Atlanta. This week, the beverage company, among other Georgia-based companies, issued statements condemning the new legislation after threats of boycott.

I suppose a Coca-Cola board meeting is a right then.

Since voting is a right, you have to make sure those doing it actually are entitled to that right. Non-citizens do not have that right, so verification of citizenship is a logical prerequisite.

Attending a shareholders’ meeting is not a ‘right,’ however – hence the false comparison fallacy.

it is certainly a right..you have the right to own property in this country...that includes a company, or shares of a company. If you own shares of a company you have a right to go to share holder meetings.

Obviously, Coke who thinks minorities are too stupid to get an ID, also doesn't want them owning or partaking in company policies.

Is it a RIGHT to own property? Or is it something that you can just do?

There's a big difference.

yes, you have the right to own property.

What do you think a "right" is?

Please cite this in the Constitution. I won't hold my breath waiting.

Well, I'd suppose the 9th Amendment. This states there are rights that aren't written into the Constitution.

However it's all subjective. What is a right and what isn't a right when you're told that there isn't a body that defines all rights?

And if there's a right to own property, what are the limitations on this right?

Can the US government take away all property, as long as I am left with one item of property (therefore having property), or can they not take away any property?

The Govt can take away all your property, as along as there is Due Process of law. I am not sure what you mean by having one item of property...having a right to property, doesn't mean that you actually have property...it simply means you have the right to be able to go get it if you want it

Well, the right to keep arms, or the right to own weapons. Constitutionally as long as the government doesn't take away all of your weapons, leaves you with ONE, then it hasn't infringed upon the Constitutional right to keep arms.

It's a problem. If you have a right to own property, then owning one thing fulfills this requirement.

No, unless you can demonstrate a numerical requirement in the Constitution...

Well with the 2A, the Constitution say the government can't prevent people from owning weapons. If you have one weapon, have you been prevented from owning weapons? No. Because you own a weapon.

The Constitution explicitly states “The right to bear arms, shall NOT be infringed.” It doesn’t bear one arm, or any number, type, or caliber of arms. To do that you’d have to amend the Constitution...good luck.

Yeah "shall not be infringed". But they've infringed upon it every single day of the 2A's life.

Prisons have their weapons taken off them ALL THE TIME.

And we're not talking about "bear arms" here. We're talking about "keep arms", two separate Constitutional rights.

The 2A is a LIMIT on the power of the government. That's all it is.

The 2A says the US government cannot stop individuals from owning weapons. The US govt stops people owning SAMs, nukes and all manner of weapons ALL THE TIME.

Are you suggesting this is unconstitutional?

If you have a gun, one gun, has the US government prevented you from owning a gun?

Yes if I want another one....in your world that is.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Hypocrites.

It's so important to protect the sanctity of our shareholders and keep the riff raff out, but, the sanctity of your vote is not important to us.

Coca-Cola required ID in 2020 shareholder meeting, but slams Georgia for voter ID law

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.

www.foxbusiness.com

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.


“At the entrance to the meeting, we will verify your registration and request to see your admission ticket and a valid form of photo identification, such as a driver’s license or passport,” the company wrote in reference to its 2020 annual meeting of shareholders, held before the coronavirus pandemic.

Georgia’s new voting law requires a drivers’ license or state ID number be listed to submit an absentee ballot to vote, among other new reforms. The state already required ID to vote in person. It had previously relied on signature matching to verify ballots.

Coca-Cola is based in Atlanta. This week, the beverage company, among other Georgia-based companies, issued statements condemning the new legislation after threats of boycott.

I suppose a Coca-Cola board meeting is a right then.

Since voting is a right, you have to make sure those doing it actually are entitled to that right. Non-citizens do not have that right, so verification of citizenship is a logical prerequisite.

Attending a shareholders’ meeting is not a ‘right,’ however – hence the false comparison fallacy.

it is certainly a right..you have the right to own property in this country...that includes a company, or shares of a company. If you own shares of a company you have a right to go to share holder meetings.

Obviously, Coke who thinks minorities are too stupid to get an ID, also doesn't want them owning or partaking in company policies.

Is it a RIGHT to own property? Or is it something that you can just do?

There's a big difference.

yes, you have the right to own property.

What do you think a "right" is?

Please cite this in the Constitution. I won't hold my breath waiting.

Well, I'd suppose the 9th Amendment. This states there are rights that aren't written into the Constitution.

However it's all subjective. What is a right and what isn't a right when you're told that there isn't a body that defines all rights?

And if there's a right to own property, what are the limitations on this right?

Can the US government take away all property, as long as I am left with one item of property (therefore having property), or can they not take away any property?

The Govt can take away all your property, as along as there is Due Process of law. I am not sure what you mean by having one item of property...having a right to property, doesn't mean that you actually have property...it simply means you have the right to be able to go get it if you want it

Well, the right to keep arms, or the right to own weapons. Constitutionally as long as the government doesn't take away all of your weapons, leaves you with ONE, then it hasn't infringed upon the Constitutional right to keep arms.

It's a problem. If you have a right to own property, then owning one thing fulfills this requirement.

No, unless you can demonstrate a numerical requirement in the Constitution...

Well with the 2A, the Constitution say the government can't prevent people from owning weapons. If you have one weapon, have you been prevented from owning weapons? No. Because you own a weapon.

The Constitution explicitly states “The right to bear arms, shall NOT be infringed.” It doesn’t bear one arm, or any number, type, or caliber of arms. To do that you’d have to amend the Constitution...good luck.

Yeah "shall not be infringed". But they've infringed upon it every single day of the 2A's life.

Prisons have their weapons taken off them ALL THE TIME.

And we're not talking about "bear arms" here. We're talking about "keep arms", two separate Constitutional rights.

The 2A is a LIMIT on the power of the government. That's all it is.

The 2A says the US government cannot stop individuals from owning weapons. The US govt stops people owning SAMs, nukes and all manner of weapons ALL THE TIME.

Are you suggesting this is unconstitutional?

If you have a gun, one gun, has the US government prevented you from owning a gun?

Yes if I want another one....in your world that is.

What?

 

[j-mac]

Hypocrites.

It's so important to protect the sanctity of our shareholders and keep the riff raff out, but, the sanctity of your vote is not important to us.

Coca-Cola required ID in 2020 shareholder meeting, but slams Georgia for voter ID law

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.

www.foxbusiness.com

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.


“At the entrance to the meeting, we will verify your registration and request to see your admission ticket and a valid form of photo identification, such as a driver’s license or passport,” the company wrote in reference to its 2020 annual meeting of shareholders, held before the coronavirus pandemic.

Georgia’s new voting law requires a drivers’ license or state ID number be listed to submit an absentee ballot to vote, among other new reforms. The state already required ID to vote in person. It had previously relied on signature matching to verify ballots.

Coca-Cola is based in Atlanta. This week, the beverage company, among other Georgia-based companies, issued statements condemning the new legislation after threats of boycott.

I suppose a Coca-Cola board meeting is a right then.

Since voting is a right, you have to make sure those doing it actually are entitled to that right. Non-citizens do not have that right, so verification of citizenship is a logical prerequisite.

Attending a shareholders’ meeting is not a ‘right,’ however – hence the false comparison fallacy.

it is certainly a right..you have the right to own property in this country...that includes a company, or shares of a company. If you own shares of a company you have a right to go to share holder meetings.

Obviously, Coke who thinks minorities are too stupid to get an ID, also doesn't want them owning or partaking in company policies.

Wrong.

Constitutional rights concern solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons or private entities.

Coca-Cola is not government, it is a private entity.

The state of Georgia is government, subject to Constitutional restrictions – such as being prohibited from placing an undue burden to the right to vote.

Well, rights are, generally, defined as a power that the government doesn't have and you do, and are protected from government intrusion.

Literally the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights were a power grab against the

Hypocrites.

It's so important to protect the sanctity of our shareholders and keep the riff raff out, but, the sanctity of your vote is not important to us.

Coca-Cola required ID in 2020 shareholder meeting, but slams Georgia for voter ID law

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.

www.foxbusiness.com

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.


“At the entrance to the meeting, we will verify your registration and request to see your admission ticket and a valid form of photo identification, such as a driver’s license or passport,” the company wrote in reference to its 2020 annual meeting of shareholders, held before the coronavirus pandemic.

Georgia’s new voting law requires a drivers’ license or state ID number be listed to submit an absentee ballot to vote, among other new reforms. The state already required ID to vote in person. It had previously relied on signature matching to verify ballots.

Coca-Cola is based in Atlanta. This week, the beverage company, among other Georgia-based companies, issued statements condemning the new legislation after threats of boycott.

I suppose a Coca-Cola board meeting is a right then.

Since voting is a right, you have to make sure those doing it actually are entitled to that right. Non-citizens do not have that right, so verification of citizenship is a logical prerequisite.

Attending a shareholders’ meeting is not a ‘right,’ however – hence the false comparison fallacy.

it is certainly a right..you have the right to own property in this country...that includes a company, or shares of a company. If you own shares of a company you have a right to go to share holder meetings.

Obviously, Coke who thinks minorities are too stupid to get an ID, also doesn't want them owning or partaking in company policies.

Is it a RIGHT to own property? Or is it something that you can just do?

There's a big difference.

yes, you have the right to own property.

What do you think a "right" is?

Well, a right is a power taken from the people with power, usually the monarch or the government and given to the people.

People have a tendency of saying they have a right to everything and anything when it's not really a right.

Your first post, then sort of contradicts your second.

I agree that a right is something that individuals have and the Govt generally can not take away or limit without due proces
So yes, you have a right to own property.

As far as your second point, no rights do not come from Govt. at least not in our Country, or any free society.

Well, not really. Not sure which first post you're talking about. The first post was that attending a board meeting isn't a right. And it's not. It's just something you can do.

huh? what do you think a right is?

A right is a power that has been taken away from those with the most power.

huh? explain that?

A right has been taken away from someone with power? Everyone has rights, we are all born with them, we are all born free. Locke said it best, and you can find his influence directly in our Founders and Founding documents...we are born with certain unalienable rights, the rights to life, liberty, and right to property, or pursuit of happiness.

These rights aren't taken from anyone...we all of them inheritably

We're actually not born with rights.

Rights is a human construct. We've developed a nice little story around what rights are. Some claim they've from God, others claim they're there because we're human.

The reality is something different.

And I understand the theories behind rights, but I'm looking at the reality of rights.

Yes we are born free. The human construction is the limitations on that freedom...ie Govt.

Really? So a caveman was born and he could do whatever he wanted? If a lion came up to him and was like "yo, cavedude, I'm going to eat you", the cavedude could reply "nah, I was born free, feck off"?why

Sure...but that doesn't mean the lion couldn't still eat him.

Exactly.

The lion has POWER. The caveman has power too.

Is the caveman therefore "free"?

Not really. It's the problem with anarchism. If you have anarchy, people will step in and take power and impose it on others. So you end up with no anarchy anyway.

"freedom" is often an illusion. We're controlled by forces around us all the time regardless of whether it's normal people, government forces like the police, bosses, the system, whatever.

No one has ever been 100% free.

"Freedom" is relative. We look at China and say "they're not free", and they might look at you and say "well, look at your crime rate, how is that free?"

Are you really saying that China’s system is better?

Did you see me write "China's system is better"? If not, then no, I'm not saying that.

By supposing what a Chinese person would prose, you implied that their system is better....

 

[frigidweirdo]

Hypocrites.

It's so important to protect the sanctity of our shareholders and keep the riff raff out, but, the sanctity of your vote is not important to us.

Coca-Cola required ID in 2020 shareholder meeting, but slams Georgia for voter ID law

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.

www.foxbusiness.com

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.


“At the entrance to the meeting, we will verify your registration and request to see your admission ticket and a valid form of photo identification, such as a driver’s license or passport,” the company wrote in reference to its 2020 annual meeting of shareholders, held before the coronavirus pandemic.

Georgia’s new voting law requires a drivers’ license or state ID number be listed to submit an absentee ballot to vote, among other new reforms. The state already required ID to vote in person. It had previously relied on signature matching to verify ballots.

Coca-Cola is based in Atlanta. This week, the beverage company, among other Georgia-based companies, issued statements condemning the new legislation after threats of boycott.

I suppose a Coca-Cola board meeting is a right then.

Since voting is a right, you have to make sure those doing it actually are entitled to that right. Non-citizens do not have that right, so verification of citizenship is a logical prerequisite.

Attending a shareholders’ meeting is not a ‘right,’ however – hence the false comparison fallacy.

it is certainly a right..you have the right to own property in this country...that includes a company, or shares of a company. If you own shares of a company you have a right to go to share holder meetings.

Obviously, Coke who thinks minorities are too stupid to get an ID, also doesn't want them owning or partaking in company policies.

Wrong.

Constitutional rights concern solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons or private entities.

Coca-Cola is not government, it is a private entity.

The state of Georgia is government, subject to Constitutional restrictions – such as being prohibited from placing an undue burden to the right to vote.

Well, rights are, generally, defined as a power that the government doesn't have and you do, and are protected from government intrusion.

Literally the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights were a power grab against the

Hypocrites.

It's so important to protect the sanctity of our shareholders and keep the riff raff out, but, the sanctity of your vote is not important to us.

Coca-Cola required ID in 2020 shareholder meeting, but slams Georgia for voter ID law

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.

www.foxbusiness.com

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.


“At the entrance to the meeting, we will verify your registration and request to see your admission ticket and a valid form of photo identification, such as a driver’s license or passport,” the company wrote in reference to its 2020 annual meeting of shareholders, held before the coronavirus pandemic.

Georgia’s new voting law requires a drivers’ license or state ID number be listed to submit an absentee ballot to vote, among other new reforms. The state already required ID to vote in person. It had previously relied on signature matching to verify ballots.

Coca-Cola is based in Atlanta. This week, the beverage company, among other Georgia-based companies, issued statements condemning the new legislation after threats of boycott.

I suppose a Coca-Cola board meeting is a right then.

Since voting is a right, you have to make sure those doing it actually are entitled to that right. Non-citizens do not have that right, so verification of citizenship is a logical prerequisite.

Attending a shareholders’ meeting is not a ‘right,’ however – hence the false comparison fallacy.

it is certainly a right..you have the right to own property in this country...that includes a company, or shares of a company. If you own shares of a company you have a right to go to share holder meetings.

Obviously, Coke who thinks minorities are too stupid to get an ID, also doesn't want them owning or partaking in company policies.

Is it a RIGHT to own property? Or is it something that you can just do?

There's a big difference.

yes, you have the right to own property.

What do you think a "right" is?

Well, a right is a power taken from the people with power, usually the monarch or the government and given to the people.

People have a tendency of saying they have a right to everything and anything when it's not really a right.

Your first post, then sort of contradicts your second.

I agree that a right is something that individuals have and the Govt generally can not take away or limit without due proces
So yes, you have a right to own property.

As far as your second point, no rights do not come from Govt. at least not in our Country, or any free society.

Well, not really. Not sure which first post you're talking about. The first post was that attending a board meeting isn't a right. And it's not. It's just something you can do.

huh? what do you think a right is?

A right is a power that has been taken away from those with the most power.

huh? explain that?

A right has been taken away from someone with power? Everyone has rights, we are all born with them, we are all born free. Locke said it best, and you can find his influence directly in our Founders and Founding documents...we are born with certain unalienable rights, the rights to life, liberty, and right to property, or pursuit of happiness.

These rights aren't taken from anyone...we all of them inheritably

We're actually not born with rights.

Rights is a human construct. We've developed a nice little story around what rights are. Some claim they've from God, others claim they're there because we're human.

The reality is something different.

And I understand the theories behind rights, but I'm looking at the reality of rights.

Yes we are born free. The human construction is the limitations on that freedom...ie Govt.

Really? So a caveman was born and he could do whatever he wanted? If a lion came up to him and was like "yo, cavedude, I'm going to eat you", the cavedude could reply "nah, I was born free, feck off"?why

Sure...but that doesn't mean the lion couldn't still eat him.

Exactly.

The lion has POWER. The caveman has power too.

Is the caveman therefore "free"?

Not really. It's the problem with anarchism. If you have anarchy, people will step in and take power and impose it on others. So you end up with no anarchy anyway.

"freedom" is often an illusion. We're controlled by forces around us all the time regardless of whether it's normal people, government forces like the police, bosses, the system, whatever.

No one has ever been 100% free.

"Freedom" is relative. We look at China and say "they're not free", and they might look at you and say "well, look at your crime rate, how is that free?"

Are you really saying that China’s system is better?

Did you see me write "China's system is better"? If not, then no, I'm not saying that.

By supposing what a Chinese person would prose, you implied that their system is better....

Fine, great conversation. I've got better things to do, like trying to lick the soles of my feet.

 

[j-mac]

Hypocrites.

It's so important to protect the sanctity of our shareholders and keep the riff raff out, but, the sanctity of your vote is not important to us.

Coca-Cola required ID in 2020 shareholder meeting, but slams Georgia for voter ID law

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.

www.foxbusiness.com

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.


“At the entrance to the meeting, we will verify your registration and request to see your admission ticket and a valid form of photo identification, such as a driver’s license or passport,” the company wrote in reference to its 2020 annual meeting of shareholders, held before the coronavirus pandemic.

Georgia’s new voting law requires a drivers’ license or state ID number be listed to submit an absentee ballot to vote, among other new reforms. The state already required ID to vote in person. It had previously relied on signature matching to verify ballots.

Coca-Cola is based in Atlanta. This week, the beverage company, among other Georgia-based companies, issued statements condemning the new legislation after threats of boycott.

I suppose a Coca-Cola board meeting is a right then.

Since voting is a right, you have to make sure those doing it actually are entitled to that right. Non-citizens do not have that right, so verification of citizenship is a logical prerequisite.

Attending a shareholders’ meeting is not a ‘right,’ however – hence the false comparison fallacy.

it is certainly a right..you have the right to own property in this country...that includes a company, or shares of a company. If you own shares of a company you have a right to go to share holder meetings.

Obviously, Coke who thinks minorities are too stupid to get an ID, also doesn't want them owning or partaking in company policies.

Is it a RIGHT to own property? Or is it something that you can just do?

There's a big difference.

yes, you have the right to own property.

What do you think a "right" is?

Please cite this in the Constitution. I won't hold my breath waiting.

Well, I'd suppose the 9th Amendment. This states there are rights that aren't written into the Constitution.

However it's all subjective. What is a right and what isn't a right when you're told that there isn't a body that defines all rights?

And if there's a right to own property, what are the limitations on this right?

Can the US government take away all property, as long as I am left with one item of property (therefore having property), or can they not take away any property?

The Govt can take away all your property, as along as there is Due Process of law. I am not sure what you mean by having one item of property...having a right to property, doesn't mean that you actually have property...it simply means you have the right to be able to go get it if you want it

Well, the right to keep arms, or the right to own weapons. Constitutionally as long as the government doesn't take away all of your weapons, leaves you with ONE, then it hasn't infringed upon the Constitutional right to keep arms.

It's a problem. If you have a right to own property, then owning one thing fulfills this requirement.

No, unless you can demonstrate a numerical requirement in the Constitution...

Well with the 2A, the Constitution say the government can't prevent people from owning weapons. If you have one weapon, have you been prevented from owning weapons? No. Because you own a weapon.

The Constitution explicitly states “The right to bear arms, shall NOT be infringed.” It doesn’t bear one arm, or any number, type, or caliber of arms. To do that you’d have to amend the Constitution...good luck.

Yeah "shall not be infringed". But they've infringed upon it every single day of the 2A's life.

Prisons have their weapons taken off them ALL THE TIME.

And we're not talking about "bear arms" here. We're talking about "keep arms", two separate Constitutional rights.

The 2A is a LIMIT on the power of the government. That's all it is.

The 2A says the US government cannot stop individuals from owning weapons. The US govt stops people owning SAMs, nukes and all manner of weapons ALL THE TIME.

Are you suggesting this is unconstitutional?

If you have a gun, one gun, has the US government prevented you from owning a gun?

Yes if I want another one....in your world that is.

What?

That‘s right...you asked me if I owned one gun, if the government was infringing on my right, did you not? I said yes, if I want more.

 

[struth]

Hypocrites.

It's so important to protect the sanctity of our shareholders and keep the riff raff out, but, the sanctity of your vote is not important to us.

Coca-Cola required ID in 2020 shareholder meeting, but slams Georgia for voter ID law

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.

www.foxbusiness.com

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.


“At the entrance to the meeting, we will verify your registration and request to see your admission ticket and a valid form of photo identification, such as a driver’s license or passport,” the company wrote in reference to its 2020 annual meeting of shareholders, held before the coronavirus pandemic.

Georgia’s new voting law requires a drivers’ license or state ID number be listed to submit an absentee ballot to vote, among other new reforms. The state already required ID to vote in person. It had previously relied on signature matching to verify ballots.

Coca-Cola is based in Atlanta. This week, the beverage company, among other Georgia-based companies, issued statements condemning the new legislation after threats of boycott.

I suppose a Coca-Cola board meeting is a right then.

Since voting is a right, you have to make sure those doing it actually are entitled to that right. Non-citizens do not have that right, so verification of citizenship is a logical prerequisite.

Attending a shareholders’ meeting is not a ‘right,’ however – hence the false comparison fallacy.

it is certainly a right..you have the right to own property in this country...that includes a company, or shares of a company. If you own shares of a company you have a right to go to share holder meetings.

Obviously, Coke who thinks minorities are too stupid to get an ID, also doesn't want them owning or partaking in company policies.

Wrong.

Constitutional rights concern solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons or private entities.

Coca-Cola is not government, it is a private entity.

The state of Georgia is government, subject to Constitutional restrictions – such as being prohibited from placing an undue burden to the right to vote.

Well, rights are, generally, defined as a power that the government doesn't have and you do, and are protected from government intrusion.

Literally the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights were a power grab against the

Hypocrites.

It's so important to protect the sanctity of our shareholders and keep the riff raff out, but, the sanctity of your vote is not important to us.

Coca-Cola required ID in 2020 shareholder meeting, but slams Georgia for voter ID law

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.

www.foxbusiness.com

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.


“At the entrance to the meeting, we will verify your registration and request to see your admission ticket and a valid form of photo identification, such as a driver’s license or passport,” the company wrote in reference to its 2020 annual meeting of shareholders, held before the coronavirus pandemic.

Georgia’s new voting law requires a drivers’ license or state ID number be listed to submit an absentee ballot to vote, among other new reforms. The state already required ID to vote in person. It had previously relied on signature matching to verify ballots.

Coca-Cola is based in Atlanta. This week, the beverage company, among other Georgia-based companies, issued statements condemning the new legislation after threats of boycott.

I suppose a Coca-Cola board meeting is a right then.

Since voting is a right, you have to make sure those doing it actually are entitled to that right. Non-citizens do not have that right, so verification of citizenship is a logical prerequisite.

Attending a shareholders’ meeting is not a ‘right,’ however – hence the false comparison fallacy.

it is certainly a right..you have the right to own property in this country...that includes a company, or shares of a company. If you own shares of a company you have a right to go to share holder meetings.

Obviously, Coke who thinks minorities are too stupid to get an ID, also doesn't want them owning or partaking in company policies.

Is it a RIGHT to own property? Or is it something that you can just do?

There's a big difference.

yes, you have the right to own property.

What do you think a "right" is?

Well, a right is a power taken from the people with power, usually the monarch or the government and given to the people.

People have a tendency of saying they have a right to everything and anything when it's not really a right.

Your first post, then sort of contradicts your second.

I agree that a right is something that individuals have and the Govt generally can not take away or limit without due proces
So yes, you have a right to own property.

As far as your second point, no rights do not come from Govt. at least not in our Country, or any free society.

Well, not really. Not sure which first post you're talking about. The first post was that attending a board meeting isn't a right. And it's not. It's just something you can do.

huh? what do you think a right is?

A right is a power that has been taken away from those with the most power.

huh? explain that?

A right has been taken away from someone with power? Everyone has rights, we are all born with them, we are all born free. Locke said it best, and you can find his influence directly in our Founders and Founding documents...we are born with certain unalienable rights, the rights to life, liberty, and right to property, or pursuit of happiness.

These rights aren't taken from anyone...we all of them inheritably

We're actually not born with rights.

Rights is a human construct. We've developed a nice little story around what rights are. Some claim they've from God, others claim they're there because we're human.

The reality is something different.

And I understand the theories behind rights, but I'm looking at the reality of rights.

Yes we are born free. The human construction is the limitations on that freedom...ie Govt.

Really? So a caveman was born and he could do whatever he wanted? If a lion came up to him and was like "yo, cavedude, I'm going to eat you", the cavedude could reply "nah, I was born free, feck off"?why

Sure...but that doesn't mean the lion couldn't still eat him.

Exactly.

The lion has POWER. The caveman has power too.

Is the caveman therefore "free"?

Not really. It's the problem with anarchism. If you have anarchy, people will step in and take power and impose it on others. So you end up with no anarchy anyway.

"freedom" is often an illusion. We're controlled by forces around us all the time regardless of whether it's normal people, government forces like the police, bosses, the system, whatever.

No one has ever been 100% free.

"Freedom" is relative. We look at China and say "they're not free", and they might look at you and say "well, look at your crime rate, how is that free?"

Are you really saying that China’s system is better?

Did you see me write "China's system is better"? If not, then no, I'm not saying that.

By supposing what a Chinese person would prose, you implied that their system is better....

Fine, great conversation. I've got better things to do, like trying to lick the soles of my feet.

Do some yoga...you have the right to get more flexible

 

[frigidweirdo]

Hypocrites.

It's so important to protect the sanctity of our shareholders and keep the riff raff out, but, the sanctity of your vote is not important to us.

Coca-Cola required ID in 2020 shareholder meeting, but slams Georgia for voter ID law

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.

www.foxbusiness.com

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.


“At the entrance to the meeting, we will verify your registration and request to see your admission ticket and a valid form of photo identification, such as a driver’s license or passport,” the company wrote in reference to its 2020 annual meeting of shareholders, held before the coronavirus pandemic.

Georgia’s new voting law requires a drivers’ license or state ID number be listed to submit an absentee ballot to vote, among other new reforms. The state already required ID to vote in person. It had previously relied on signature matching to verify ballots.

Coca-Cola is based in Atlanta. This week, the beverage company, among other Georgia-based companies, issued statements condemning the new legislation after threats of boycott.

I suppose a Coca-Cola board meeting is a right then.

Since voting is a right, you have to make sure those doing it actually are entitled to that right. Non-citizens do not have that right, so verification of citizenship is a logical prerequisite.

Attending a shareholders’ meeting is not a ‘right,’ however – hence the false comparison fallacy.

it is certainly a right..you have the right to own property in this country...that includes a company, or shares of a company. If you own shares of a company you have a right to go to share holder meetings.

Obviously, Coke who thinks minorities are too stupid to get an ID, also doesn't want them owning or partaking in company policies.

Wrong.

Constitutional rights concern solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons or private entities.

Coca-Cola is not government, it is a private entity.

The state of Georgia is government, subject to Constitutional restrictions – such as being prohibited from placing an undue burden to the right to vote.

Well, rights are, generally, defined as a power that the government doesn't have and you do, and are protected from government intrusion.

Literally the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights were a power grab against the

Hypocrites.

It's so important to protect the sanctity of our shareholders and keep the riff raff out, but, the sanctity of your vote is not important to us.

Coca-Cola required ID in 2020 shareholder meeting, but slams Georgia for voter ID law

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.

www.foxbusiness.com

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.


“At the entrance to the meeting, we will verify your registration and request to see your admission ticket and a valid form of photo identification, such as a driver’s license or passport,” the company wrote in reference to its 2020 annual meeting of shareholders, held before the coronavirus pandemic.

Georgia’s new voting law requires a drivers’ license or state ID number be listed to submit an absentee ballot to vote, among other new reforms. The state already required ID to vote in person. It had previously relied on signature matching to verify ballots.

Coca-Cola is based in Atlanta. This week, the beverage company, among other Georgia-based companies, issued statements condemning the new legislation after threats of boycott.

I suppose a Coca-Cola board meeting is a right then.

Since voting is a right, you have to make sure those doing it actually are entitled to that right. Non-citizens do not have that right, so verification of citizenship is a logical prerequisite.

Attending a shareholders’ meeting is not a ‘right,’ however – hence the false comparison fallacy.

it is certainly a right..you have the right to own property in this country...that includes a company, or shares of a company. If you own shares of a company you have a right to go to share holder meetings.

Obviously, Coke who thinks minorities are too stupid to get an ID, also doesn't want them owning or partaking in company policies.

Is it a RIGHT to own property? Or is it something that you can just do?

There's a big difference.

yes, you have the right to own property.

What do you think a "right" is?

Well, a right is a power taken from the people with power, usually the monarch or the government and given to the people.

People have a tendency of saying they have a right to everything and anything when it's not really a right.

Your first post, then sort of contradicts your second.

I agree that a right is something that individuals have and the Govt generally can not take away or limit without due proces
So yes, you have a right to own property.

As far as your second point, no rights do not come from Govt. at least not in our Country, or any free society.

Well, not really. Not sure which first post you're talking about. The first post was that attending a board meeting isn't a right. And it's not. It's just something you can do.

huh? what do you think a right is?

A right is a power that has been taken away from those with the most power.

huh? explain that?

A right has been taken away from someone with power? Everyone has rights, we are all born with them, we are all born free. Locke said it best, and you can find his influence directly in our Founders and Founding documents...we are born with certain unalienable rights, the rights to life, liberty, and right to property, or pursuit of happiness.

These rights aren't taken from anyone...we all of them inheritably

We're actually not born with rights.

Rights is a human construct. We've developed a nice little story around what rights are. Some claim they've from God, others claim they're there because we're human.

The reality is something different.

And I understand the theories behind rights, but I'm looking at the reality of rights.

Yes we are born free. The human construction is the limitations on that freedom...ie Govt.

Really? So a caveman was born and he could do whatever he wanted? If a lion came up to him and was like "yo, cavedude, I'm going to eat you", the cavedude could reply "nah, I was born free, feck off"?why

Sure...but that doesn't mean the lion couldn't still eat him.

Exactly.

The lion has POWER. The caveman has power too.

Is the caveman therefore "free"?

Not really. It's the problem with anarchism. If you have anarchy, people will step in and take power and impose it on others. So you end up with no anarchy anyway.

"freedom" is often an illusion. We're controlled by forces around us all the time regardless of whether it's normal people, government forces like the police, bosses, the system, whatever.

No one has ever been 100% free.

"Freedom" is relative. We look at China and say "they're not free", and they might look at you and say "well, look at your crime rate, how is that free?"

Are you really saying that China’s system is better?

Did you see me write "China's system is better"? If not, then no, I'm not saying that.

By supposing what a Chinese person would prose, you implied that their system is better....

Fine, great conversation. I've got better things to do, like trying to lick the soles of my feet.

Do some yoga...you have the right to get more flexible

The right or the ability?

It's not a right, the government never tried to take away people's ability to be flexible.

 

[struth]

Hypocrites.

It's so important to protect the sanctity of our shareholders and keep the riff raff out, but, the sanctity of your vote is not important to us.

Coca-Cola required ID in 2020 shareholder meeting, but slams Georgia for voter ID law

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.

www.foxbusiness.com

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.


“At the entrance to the meeting, we will verify your registration and request to see your admission ticket and a valid form of photo identification, such as a driver’s license or passport,” the company wrote in reference to its 2020 annual meeting of shareholders, held before the coronavirus pandemic.

Georgia’s new voting law requires a drivers’ license or state ID number be listed to submit an absentee ballot to vote, among other new reforms. The state already required ID to vote in person. It had previously relied on signature matching to verify ballots.

Coca-Cola is based in Atlanta. This week, the beverage company, among other Georgia-based companies, issued statements condemning the new legislation after threats of boycott.

I suppose a Coca-Cola board meeting is a right then.

Since voting is a right, you have to make sure those doing it actually are entitled to that right. Non-citizens do not have that right, so verification of citizenship is a logical prerequisite.

Attending a shareholders’ meeting is not a ‘right,’ however – hence the false comparison fallacy.

it is certainly a right..you have the right to own property in this country...that includes a company, or shares of a company. If you own shares of a company you have a right to go to share holder meetings.

Obviously, Coke who thinks minorities are too stupid to get an ID, also doesn't want them owning or partaking in company policies.

Wrong.

Constitutional rights concern solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons or private entities.

Coca-Cola is not government, it is a private entity.

The state of Georgia is government, subject to Constitutional restrictions – such as being prohibited from placing an undue burden to the right to vote.

Well, rights are, generally, defined as a power that the government doesn't have and you do, and are protected from government intrusion.

Literally the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights were a power grab against the

Hypocrites.

It's so important to protect the sanctity of our shareholders and keep the riff raff out, but, the sanctity of your vote is not important to us.

Coca-Cola required ID in 2020 shareholder meeting, but slams Georgia for voter ID law

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.

www.foxbusiness.com

Coca-Cola has released a statement condemning Georgia’s new voting legislation, but the company requires valid ID to be admitted to its annual meeting of shareholders.


“At the entrance to the meeting, we will verify your registration and request to see your admission ticket and a valid form of photo identification, such as a driver’s license or passport,” the company wrote in reference to its 2020 annual meeting of shareholders, held before the coronavirus pandemic.

Georgia’s new voting law requires a drivers’ license or state ID number be listed to submit an absentee ballot to vote, among other new reforms. The state already required ID to vote in person. It had previously relied on signature matching to verify ballots.

Coca-Cola is based in Atlanta. This week, the beverage company, among other Georgia-based companies, issued statements condemning the new legislation after threats of boycott.

I suppose a Coca-Cola board meeting is a right then.

Since voting is a right, you have to make sure those doing it actually are entitled to that right. Non-citizens do not have that right, so verification of citizenship is a logical prerequisite.

Attending a shareholders’ meeting is not a ‘right,’ however – hence the false comparison fallacy.

it is certainly a right..you have the right to own property in this country...that includes a company, or shares of a company. If you own shares of a company you have a right to go to share holder meetings.

Obviously, Coke who thinks minorities are too stupid to get an ID, also doesn't want them owning or partaking in company policies.

Is it a RIGHT to own property? Or is it something that you can just do?

There's a big difference.

yes, you have the right to own property.

What do you think a "right" is?

Well, a right is a power taken from the people with power, usually the monarch or the government and given to the people.

People have a tendency of saying they have a right to everything and anything when it's not really a right.

Your first post, then sort of contradicts your second.

I agree that a right is something that individuals have and the Govt generally can not take away or limit without due proces
So yes, you have a right to own property.

As far as your second point, no rights do not come from Govt. at least not in our Country, or any free society.

Well, not really. Not sure which first post you're talking about. The first post was that attending a board meeting isn't a right. And it's not. It's just something you can do.

huh? what do you think a right is?

A right is a power that has been taken away from those with the most power.

huh? explain that?

A right has been taken away from someone with power? Everyone has rights, we are all born with them, we are all born free. Locke said it best, and you can find his influence directly in our Founders and Founding documents...we are born with certain unalienable rights, the rights to life, liberty, and right to property, or pursuit of happiness.

These rights aren't taken from anyone...we all of them inheritably

We're actually not born with rights.

Rights is a human construct. We've developed a nice little story around what rights are. Some claim they've from God, others claim they're there because we're human.

The reality is something different.

And I understand the theories behind rights, but I'm looking at the reality of rights.

Yes we are born free. The human construction is the limitations on that freedom...ie Govt.

Really? So a caveman was born and he could do whatever he wanted? If a lion came up to him and was like "yo, cavedude, I'm going to eat you", the cavedude could reply "nah, I was born free, feck off"?why

Sure...but that doesn't mean the lion couldn't still eat him.

Exactly.

The lion has POWER. The caveman has power too.

Is the caveman therefore "free"?

Not really. It's the problem with anarchism. If you have anarchy, people will step in and take power and impose it on others. So you end up with no anarchy anyway.

"freedom" is often an illusion. We're controlled by forces around us all the time regardless of whether it's normal people, government forces like the police, bosses, the system, whatever.

No one has ever been 100% free.

"Freedom" is relative. We look at China and say "they're not free", and they might look at you and say "well, look at your crime rate, how is that free?"

Sure he's free. Being free doesn't mean that someone can't take that freedom from you. There are tons of people in jail or prison right now...they were born free..nonetheless...but before the Govt took their freedom from them, they were given the highest level of Due Process

Lions, tigers and bears can kill anyone...they are wild animals.

Here's a better example of reality...a group of cavemen get together, they are sick of lions killing their kids. They say, look...why don't we all agree to work together. We have to take shifts to protect and stay on watch....we need to get together and work on making spears etc etc...the cavemen agree to give up some of their freedom to work together in a society.

I am not sure what crime rate has to do with freedom. People are born free, and give up some of their soveighity to live in a society, that society creates laws...ie don't steal...the crime is then stealing...the person makes that choice to steal, and then has all the due process before the Govt can take their liberty

In China, not so much...in China, like a lot of leftist regimes...their only existance comes from the State or party....

So what is free?

As for the cavemen, how many were BORN free? How many, at birth, said "yeah, I give up some of my freedom for security"?

Or is it that you're born having already given up freedom for security, and you have no choice but to accept it?

So, how does a person's existence come from the State or the party, but in the US it isn't so?

What's the difference, I don't see it.

I have no idea how many cavemen existed...so I have no idea how many were born. How many decided to give up some of their soveignty? Again...I have no clue....some certainly did...hence why we have societies

As to your next point...yes I do certainly think, at least in the United States, bound to the system that are forefathers already created. But you are free to certainly leave the United States...and denounce your citizenship.

Why is China system different then ours? Their Govt, like the lion, took their rights.