It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: reldra
There was no twist there.
What when on the church wasn't because of the religion itself.
But the politicization of it by the few.
The few that was responsible for the greatest atrocities in world history.
People SHOULD be paying attention.
Dugdale pointed to a probation report citing eight allegations in which Nakoula had allegedly violated his probation. One of those was a requirement not to use aliases without permission from his probation officer, something the prosecutor said Nakoula did on at least three instances: during his fraud case, when he tried to get a passport in 2011 and during the making of the film. Dugdale said Nakoula had deceived the cast of the film as well as his probation officers.
originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: TheBulk
He wasn't jailed for a differing opinion, he was jailed for breaking the law.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TheBulk
This is a leading question fallacy. You imply the claim that Nakoula's arrest came in part for blaming the video on the attack on Benghazi in a question asking about how important that actually was in arresting him. You first need to prove that those claims had anything to do with his arrest before you can ask people to define how important it had to do with his arrest.
Corporate personhood is the legal notion that a corporation, separately from its associated human beings (like owners, managers, or employees), has some, but not all, of the legal rights and responsibilities enjoyed by natural persons (physical humans).[1] For example, corporations have the right to enter into contracts with other parties and to sue or be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons.
no one will be prosecuted for being a 'global warming sceptic
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: neo96
Being a GW skeptic is not the same as being a corporation that intentionally misleads their shareholders in contrast to verifiable scientific information.
originally posted by: neo96
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: neo96
Being a GW skeptic is not the same as being a corporation that intentionally misleads their shareholders in contrast to verifiable scientific information.
Interesting coming from 'CLinton is innocent until proven guilty', and 'corporations are just guilty'. Because Dems say so.
Another joint proposal calling on the Department of Justice to investigate alleged corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies who have reportedly misled shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change was also adopted by unanimous consent,”