I posted this on Facebook and got the following reply from this consistently deranged hater (who also happens to be a hippie) who follows me to hate on my posts, make things up to bait me into…er…owning him, publicly wish I was dead, call me a terrible/despicable/awful person, etc. Here’s the latest:

Text copy & pasted if the image is hard to read:

Jon Rich: Let me get this straight: a single case of an overzealous enforcement of a sexual harassment policy is proof that “hippies ruin everything they touch.” Never mind the millions of cases where sexual harassment laws have been fairly applied to prevent women from being exploited by bosses, co-workers, students, and professors. No, it is so much easier to make a blanket statement based on an anecdote.

Let yourself get it straight by learning to read. Since the public school system has failed you, i’ll have pity and help you out: the words “another” and “reminder” (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/another &http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reminder) mean the opposite of “a single case of an overzealous enforcement”. While its cool that you admit sexual harassment laws are just feminist propaganda (the official line is that they apply to both genders), it’s stupid to claim that “fair” application of a law to only one gender (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fair) is evidence that the law is good.

Sexual assault and ethics laws give tools to prevent injustices and prosecute them when they occur.
Sexual harassment laws give tools to destroy lives and make places of work and learning places of fear and oppression.

HINT: good laws dont have areas where they can be applied to suspend and tarnish 9 year olds for making innocent G rated positive comments to other students. but by all means – don’t let logic get in the way of your hippie dogma.

If the answer is “no one” then the sign is meaningless. It should read “I’ll believe corporations are people when one commits murder”.

If there is a case of an American corporation murdering someone then show it to me so I can publicize the event and look into why it wasn’t properly prosecuted and why the corporation wasn’t executed. It’s not impossible that a Corporation murdered someone and then got away with it while continuing to do business but it’s pretty unlikely.

What the legal classification of a Corporation being a person means is not that if you carry it’s documents with you in your car then you can drive in the carpool lane or anything stupid like that – it just means that a corporation can’t be deprived constitutional rights. or in other words: people can’t be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively in commerce (and form a corp). ie: Corporate personhood says that the government can’t deny fifth amendment rights or free speech rights to a group of people in a corporation just as they can’t to an individual. hippies hate that rule because they hate anything designed to make a profit and that is what a corporation is, so hence their fight against corporate personhood.

But if a corporation murdered anyone then it definitely should be executed. I’m just waiting for the facts behind this phrase…

Dear Hippies: Using clever slogans only remains clever if their content makes sense. If there is no factual basis for your sloganeering then you’re not making a point, you’re unmaking it.

I’m eager to hear all the cases of murder where the perpetrator was a Corporation, so if you’re one of the people who keeps posting this sign on facebook – send em on in! Show me the time that McDonalds send out an order to shoot a guy or when Microsoft had someone beat to death in a Dennys parking lot. That’s what murder is, fellas. Microsoft making shitty products is not murder and McDonalds making fatty food is not murder and only murder is punishable by execution. So. Have at it and i’ll update this post with all your examples.

Current instances of Corporate Murder: 0

UPDATE: Well this is embarrassing. In search of an example that makes this line make sense, I found this image below. Shit. I totally forgot about that time Wal-Mart killed 3 thousand innocent civilians. NEVER FORGET.

UPDATE: Cory leaves the following comment:

New Forests Company

you lose.

I didn’t know I had bet anything, so I don’t know what it is I am losing, but I’ve also never heard of this Corp, so lets take to Google:

The New Forests Company is a UK-based sustainable and socially responsible forestry company with established, rapidly growing plantations and the prospect of a diversified product base for local and regional export markets which will deliver both attractive returns to investors and significant social and environmental benefits.

Oh… UK-based…that might be why I’ve never heard of them and their website says they operate in Africa. Ya, I’m not so sure that the American state of Texas can apply it’s death penalty laws to a non-American corporation (nah, I’m just putting it that way to soften the blow. the truth is that I know for a fact that that’s how it works), but if this corporation has been convicted of killing anyone then thats still pretty big, American or not. [7 minutes on Google later]: It appears there have been no convictions of murder, but some villagers in Uganda gave eye witness reports that New Forests Company security officers killed some unnamed people. Hmm… this is some pretty odd conviction standards: an unnamed eye witness gives an out-of-court report that a non-America Corporation killed an unnamed person or persons in Uganda under unknown circumstances and that has a relation to the American constitution and American law of Corporate Personhood somehow? Even if I accept that part – this “some guy killed someone somewhere” is not conviction worth testimony. If Cory – or any of you reading this – has evidence that the New Forest Corporation actually did instruct a murder hit on any individuals in this Ugandan village then even though it’s not American and not subject to our laws, it would be a decent non-American example. I will email Cory and ask if he has info pointing towards just that (which I assume he does on account of me losing) but if you know anything about this you email me too and i’ll update accordingly.

Developing…

UPDATE: Jason comments with more argument that is along the same that leads me to realize more clarity is required for the issue. First, Jasons comment:

Failures of corporations routinely cause harm and death to humans. If you have to ask for sources, then you clearly aren’t paying attention. These abuses are ‘settled out of court’ in civil suits and never reach the criminal justice system.

Google for ‘wrongful death settlements’ and be careful who you believe until you’ve followed their money trail.

I appreciate the attempt in this comment, but it’s no good unless you can also provide examples of when Texas has ever executed someone due to a failure. Who has ever been executed for murder because they failed at safety conditions around their house or property? This comment argues far more that a Corporation is a human than it does against it. Humans routinely cause harm and death to humans. So what relevance does that have to the question posed here, which is “What corporation has murdered someone?”. Humans murdering humans are not settled out of court and neither would a corporation murdering anyone. Causing harm is not murder and “causing” death is not even necessarily murder. Wrongful death settlements are in no way examples of murder – they are examples of wrongful deaths.

The search continues for the American Corporation who has ever murdered anyone, ever – OR – the Texas execution of anyone who has ever been involved with wrongful harm or death of someone parallel to that of a corporate example.

Here she is in blackface…

And here she is nude with a modesty-umbrella covering her Reinlands that you may Nazi even though you may Reich to:

“The photos in this collection are from the private albums of Braun which were confiscated by the U.S. Army in 1945 and taken into the National Archives where many remained, largely undigitised,” The Daily Mail reports.

See the rest of the images from the Daily Mail.

The Guardian reports that the director of the Alaska Wildlife Alliance thinks Palin broke the rules of Wolverine Creek which is a place in Alaska where bears and humans alike go fishing.

Large brown bears gather in Wolverine Creek because the fishing is so easy and the animals have, in the process, become a tourist spectacle. But Toppenberg warned that by behaving in an apparently irreverent manner, Palin was doing nothing to foster responsibility among visitors. “She is encouraging the violation of important guidelines that allows tourism to flourish in Alaska. She is inviting future problems with the tourism industry and, in particular, the bear-viewing industry,” he said.

This guy is being a total douche. He calls Palins actions a “travesty”. The fuck? She wasn’t throwing rocks at the god damn cubs – She drifts in their direction slowly and with caution, leaves them alone, shows fear and respect for the possible danger and then leaves.

Making this even more bizarre though is that the criticism is not that she was being dangerous…

But this enraged Toppenberg. “She implies that she is somehow in danger or being brave. That’s complete nonsense,” he said. “Wolverine Creek is the one place in Alaska where the bears are tolerant and completely habituated to the presence of people and boats. But the guidelines are there for a reason.”

If this is worthy of outrage for you, you need to get a friggin life. If this is the best fuel you’re using to make an anti-Palin case you fail even harder because she’s such a font of legit criticism. Do you not read her Twitter or Facebook or watch her on Fox News? She’s an endless stream of bullseye’s to make news over and gain points for your side (or just lower hers) on and you’re wasting your time on criticism like “she’s too damn enthusiastic about nature”? *facepalm* – You’re doing it wrong…

Be scared that she might run for president, not that she might have broken a “spirit of the law” rule concerning domesticated wildlife that caused no harm.

Another reason I think jumping on this may be ill-advised is that Palin is constantly trolling… she dont just bait fish hooks.. on Facebook, on Twitter, on Fox News – she is ALWAYS throwing something out there that looks like its crazystupidwrong and then owns everyone who jumped on it before all the facts were in. this allows her more controversial comments to slip under the radar. so i wouldnt be surprised if this episode has a buttload of “bears are dangerous” type of PSA warnings and crap in it and she’s gonna lean back smugly over the hype. I dont wanna play that game.

While we clearly need health-care reform, the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system. Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction—toward less government control and more individual empowerment. Here are eight reforms that would greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone:

And then proceeds to list them. The column is definitely worth the read if you’re even a little interested in the subject. In his list are evidently outrageous things like “Enact tort reform” and “Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost.”

This, to the intolerant closed minded brainwashed bubble living freaks of the granola left is completely unacceptable…

Andrew Brietbart notes the absurdity on display here through a Washington Times column on the subject:

Mr. Mackey, a free-market libertarian, is now at the mercy of an unforgiving grass-roots mob intent on destroying his company. More than 25,000 people have signed on to a Whole Foods boycott on Facebook.

“Whole Foods has built its brand with the dollars of deceived progressives,” the online petition reads. “Let them know your money will no longer go to support Whole Foods’ anti-union, anti-health insurance reform, right-wing activities.”

He goes on to note that WholeBoycott.com, features unintentionally comical video testimonials from aggrieved former customers. *yawn*

Greta Van Susteren asks Russell Mokhiber, organizer of a boycott against Whole Foods if CEO John Mackey is a bad guy. “Yeah, I do. Yeah, he’s a bad guy.” Greta, playing defense for the controversial right to disagree tells him”You stun me”. Whole Foods supporter Cyrstal Jones provides balance and sanity in this segment. Greta apologizes to her for having her “horns locked” with the Whole Foods boycott organizer.

More from Breitbarts WashTimes article:

But Mr. Mackey missed the key ingredient of modern liberalism: intolerance to the ideas of nonliberals. And this miscalculation may prove to be devastating to his multibillion-dollar business.

Everywhere one looks these days, the intolerance of self-avowed liberals is on display. Especially since Mr. Obama came to power.

The purportedly open-minded and empathic among us who now run everything – save for NASCAR and Nashville – openly wage war against those who dare disagree.

Some man-on-the-street reactions worth hearing:

Besides, Boycotts are stupid, unless you’re boycotting baseball:

Boycotts are stupid. Well, except my boycott of baseball. But that’s different. It’s not a boycott so much as it is that I just don’t enjoy the sport as much now that I realize that most of the people involved in it have no integrity on the doping issue. Plus, it’s just way too slow. I prefer the fast pace of golf.

But back to boycotts, the Whole Foods boycott really seems odd to me because there is a lot to like about Whole Foods’ philosophy. If you want to encourage small brands that use organic farming — if you want to encourage a different kind of neighborhood store — if you want to encourage less waste from plastic bags — if you want to eat good food … then you shop at Whole Foods. But the CEO has some thoughts on health care that you disagree with, so you throw all that out the window and boycott? That makes no sense to me.

Reporter Stephen Sackur was all wtf about a July 15th press release that sounded the OMG alarm for immediate action against your lifestyle and the countries economy because if we don’t do as they say then all of the Arctic ice would disappear by 2030. You can watch the full interview here if you’re interested, but the golden moment is this admission where the Greenpeace leader immediately admits that the claim in the press release is laughable bullshit designed to scare women and children into submitting to hippie law and order.. or something.

Good thing Greenpeace is just a concerned science based organization with no alternate agenda other than caring for the planet n stuff.

Although he admitted Greenpeace had released inaccurate but alarming information, Leipold defended the organization’s practice of “emotionalizing issues” in order to bring the public around to its way of thinking and alter public opinion.

Leipold said later in the BBC interview that there is an urgent need for the suppression of economic growth in the United States and around the world. He said annual growth rates of 3 percent to 8 percent cannot continue without serious consequences for the climate.

“We will definitely have to move to a different concept of growth. … The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model,” Leipold said. “If you take the lifestyle, its cost on the environment, and you multiply it with the billions of people and an increasing world population, you come up with numbers which are truly scary.”

oh…