Working Until You Die
- Thread starter Faye
- Start date
Corporate law (also known as business law, company law or enterprise law) is the body of law governing the rights, relations, and conduct of persons, companies, organizations and businesses. The term refers to the legal practice of law relating to corporations, or to the theory of corporations. Corporate law often describes the law relating to matters which derive directly from the life-cycle of a corporation.[1] It thus encompasses the formation, funding, governance, and death of a corporation.
While the minute nature of corporate governance as personified by share ownership, capital market, and business culture rules differ, similar legal characteristics and legal problems exist across many jurisdictions. Corporate law regulates how corporations, investors, shareholders, directors, employees, creditors, and other stakeholders such as consumers, the community, and the environment interact with one another.[1] Whilst the term company or business law is colloquially used interchangeably with corporate law, the term business law mostly refers to wider concepts of commercial law, that is the law relating to commercial and business related purposes and activities. In some cases, this may include matters relating to corporate governance or financial law. When used as a substitute for corporate law, business law means the law relating to the business corporation (or business enterprises), including such activity as raising capital, company formation, and registration with the government.
While the minute nature of corporate governance as personified by share ownership, capital market, and business culture rules differ, similar legal characteristics and legal problems exist across many jurisdictions. Corporate law regulates how corporations, investors, shareholders, directors, employees, creditors, and other stakeholders such as consumers, the community, and the environment interact with one another.[1] Whilst the term company or business law is colloquially used interchangeably with corporate law, the term business law mostly refers to wider concepts of commercial law, that is the law relating to commercial and business related purposes and activities. In some cases, this may include matters relating to corporate governance or financial law. When used as a substitute for corporate law, business law means the law relating to the business corporation (or business enterprises), including such activity as raising capital, company formation, and registration with the government.
Corporations have rights? It is the ways government chose to have corporations run. Depreciation is not something one wants to do with their home, right? A business owner can get sued. A corporation can get sued. Corporations are there to, among many things, protect personally owned property and the people involved.
There could be several pages written I don't have the time to write, but the information is there for those who wish to quote it. That would help. Heck: I learned a new word today.
Let's say a middle-aged couple get married, and both owned a good bit of things and money. Maybe some was inherited? They decide to go into business. These laws help individuals who may have already sold a business, or own more than most, keep it from the dogs if the corporation gets sued. I like that part of corporate law.
There could be several pages written I don't have the time to write, but the information is there for those who wish to quote it. That would help. Heck: I learned a new word today.
Let's say a middle-aged couple get married, and both owned a good bit of things and money. Maybe some was inherited? They decide to go into business. These laws help individuals who may have already sold a business, or own more than most, keep it from the dogs if the corporation gets sued. I like that part of corporate law.
I also think it difficult to state how people believe or what people want by a vote, and by age group just isn't right to me.
We normally get to vote yes or no. We didn't write it. We couldn't add things we feel should be in it. Sometimes we vote because we would rather see this voted in than that. Makes me think of being in court.
The attorney: Just answer yes or no.
Me: I'll be glad to answer yes or no with a statement explaining myself, as a simple yes or no will not cut it for me. Sometimes we just don't want to answer the whole thing with just a yes or no. Sometimes it just isn't all encumbering. They sometimes call it too much red tape.
We normally get to vote yes or no. We didn't write it. We couldn't add things we feel should be in it. Sometimes we vote because we would rather see this voted in than that. Makes me think of being in court.
The attorney: Just answer yes or no.
Me: I'll be glad to answer yes or no with a statement explaining myself, as a simple yes or no will not cut it for me. Sometimes we just don't want to answer the whole thing with just a yes or no. Sometimes it just isn't all encumbering. They sometimes call it too much red tape.
Yeah, I understand. I'm not arguing with you. I responded because, I don't think you understood my comment, which wasn't directed to you in the first place. I'm getting tired if this BS. I'm sending you a PM
Last edited:
@pale rider
I'm not able to send a PM to you and ask you anything; it looks like so I'll ask u here? What's your problem? Why do you keep responding to my posts that have nothing to do with you? And when you do its like you don't listen and are trying to start an argument.
I don't have anything against you, but you're annoying the Hell out of me(and I have you on ignore already). Please ignore me, and leave me the fuck alone on the forum, alright?
I'm not able to send a PM to you and ask you anything; it looks like so I'll ask u here? What's your problem? Why do you keep responding to my posts that have nothing to do with you? And when you do its like you don't listen and are trying to start an argument.
I don't have anything against you, but you're annoying the Hell out of me(and I have you on ignore already). Please ignore me, and leave me the fuck alone on the forum, alright?
I'm not arguing with you, either. I'm stating a belief I have had for decades.
EX: Freddie went by Suzy's house and spoke with her at six PM. Same night, someone kills Suzy hours later. In court, an attorney asks Freddie if he went by Suzy's house that afternoon, yes or no.
That's what I'm talking about. I'd say, Wait a minute. Rephrase your question please.
EX: Freddie went by Suzy's house and spoke with her at six PM. Same night, someone kills Suzy hours later. In court, an attorney asks Freddie if he went by Suzy's house that afternoon, yes or no.
That's what I'm talking about. I'd say, Wait a minute. Rephrase your question please.
I don't want to talk to you. Please put me on ignore. I'll make sure to stay out of your way if you can please stay out of mine.
I am not ignoring anyone nowadays. I want to read what is said here or I wouldn't be here. I'll make sure not to act like you are my friend. How can you read my posts if I am on ignore. I'll rather try to stop quoting your words.
Not crawling under the porch. Peace. Pace. I'll try not to step on your lines, though I feel misunderstood. Take care of yourself. Let's see how this works. Don't talk to me. Bye now.
Not crawling under the porch. Peace. Pace. I'll try not to step on your lines, though I feel misunderstood. Take care of yourself. Let's see how this works. Don't talk to me. Bye now.
I don't really understand what's wrong with those job descriptions? They sound fun and like a good opportunity. maybe you just don't like tech culture? Many people do. The #1 thing for me is that I like the people I work with and that we are able to communicate and get along. That's why work culture is so important, you want to make sure you hire people with a similar communication style and way of interacting for a smooth team relationship. After you work somewhere for years, work buddies can become like family. When my job was in office, there were nerf guns and we would go shoot people at other department sometimes. It was fun.
A lot of those postings are just toxic being fairly typical of malignant personalities and culture that needs to be reformed if not replaced altogether as normal people are struggling to cope. Such places are wonderful for sociopaths and narcissists never mind the occasional psychopath that need captive audiences for their supply otherwise they can't function without micromanaging the slaves.
Huh. I've never heard that. I've worked at several types of places like that (and prefer them). Did you have a personal experience with a company like this or what makes you conclude that this is the type of people you would find there or that the culture is like that? Thanks for you thoughts. I'm not trying to shoot down your experiences, I'm just curious about the details since they're so different from my own (obviously subjective) experiences with it.
Stepping back a page or two....
Thomas Paine hit the nail on the head:
“Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”
"Government is not a trade which any man or body of men has a right to set up and exercise for his own emolument, but is altogether a trust, in right of those by whom that trust is delegated, and by whom it is always resumable. It has of itself no rights; they are altogether duties."
Our Founding Fathers didn't believe in politickal parties:
John Adams:
“Mankind in time will discover that unbridled majorities are as tyrannical and cruel as unlimited despots”. 1793
This is happening now. All of the govt problems we are having is the result of politickal parties trying to be the majority and thumbing their noses at "We the people". Greed. Power. Money. Holier than thou attitudes. It all needs to be taken away from them. Terms limits is a must.
Voters have to reminded that THEY are in control. Not the government.
Because there is a law making something legal, doesn't mean it's moral. Lawyers..... Shakespeare had it right.
Thomas Paine hit the nail on the head:
“Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”
"Government is not a trade which any man or body of men has a right to set up and exercise for his own emolument, but is altogether a trust, in right of those by whom that trust is delegated, and by whom it is always resumable. It has of itself no rights; they are altogether duties."
Our Founding Fathers didn't believe in politickal parties:
John Adams:
“Mankind in time will discover that unbridled majorities are as tyrannical and cruel as unlimited despots”. 1793
This is happening now. All of the govt problems we are having is the result of politickal parties trying to be the majority and thumbing their noses at "We the people". Greed. Power. Money. Holier than thou attitudes. It all needs to be taken away from them. Terms limits is a must.
Voters have to reminded that THEY are in control. Not the government.
Because there is a law making something legal, doesn't mean it's moral. Lawyers..... Shakespeare had it right.
This is by design and we're in the end stages of capitalism before it turns to outright slavery be it to the corporates and big government.
@Jexocuha this video is pretty accurate. I was a child through the 1950s and of course at the time that was what we knew and it was a lot better than the 1940s with its great war. But the house I lived in had no central heating, the bedrooms were cold and draughty, we mainly lived in the kitchen which is where we had a fire - there were fireplaces in the downstairs rooms as well but they were too expensive to run and too time consuming so set and feed. Folks forget how much effort it takes to light and maintain a coal fire successfully. The kitchen had an outside door, one into the hall and one into a cellar - they all had gaps in and underneath them so it was very draughty, so it was radiant heat from the fire than kept us warm rather than actually increasing the room temperature. It was a big event at Christmas when mum lit fires in the other rooms - we forget these days how special it could be to light fires in rooms we didn't use very often, and it was like a magical different world to a small child.
Mum had to do all our washing by hand and had a mangle in the garden for squeezing them dry before putting them on the clothes line (which immediately prompted the heavens to open and rinse them all with sooty raindrops from the smoke coming out of the chimneys all around us. We had no fridge, no freezer, no vacuum cleaner (mum did it all with a brush and pan), and it was difficult to keep food fresh for more than a day or two, so mum went shopping every day for perishable groceries. We had no car, so all this was done on foot. Those were very labour-intensive days
We were constantly under threat as well from diseases that are eradicated now, or easily treatable. Measles, mumps, polio, diphtheria, rubella were all pretty common, and there were occasional outbreaks of smallpox in the city where we lived. It didn't bother us (much) then, in that we knew no better, and things had improved a lot since the previous generation, but modern folks would be terrified by it judging by the recent reaction to the pandemic, which was pretty tame compared with the stuff that was circulating all the time in the 1950s (though obviously much more widespread).
In those days, corporal punishment was still encouraged and used in schools and kids were pretty frightened of many of the teachers - I don't think modern youngsters would be too happy with that. I must say though that as a fairly timid child myself, this maybe gave me a lot more protection from bullies than would be the case today.
I think where modern youngsters have a possible case is over the cost of tertiary education. My generation in the UK lies between the earlier ones and the later ones that both had to pay through the nose for it. I didn’t - it was funded in the UK almost entirely by the state from the 1950s through to the 1980s. We had a strict limit on how many people could go to uni though. It was rationed by ability and you needed to be in the top 10-20% of achievers academically to get there. Once we decided everyone should have the opportunity to go, it became no longer possible for the state to fund it entirely and people today have to pay enormous sums for it out of their own pockets. I have mixed feelings about this - there is a very worthy aim to give youngsters a chance to better themselves and break out of age-old class boundaries. The trouble is that tertiary education is still focused on academic ability, and to be honest only a minority of us are actually suited to this. We have turned the universities in the UK into a device for social engineering and this seems to me to be doing the people who pass through them a grave disservice. I think we were better served in my day when we paid very little ourselves, but only those who had the relevant sort of talents and interests would go. What we've done is a bit like if we said that soccer is a way through our class barriers, so everyone should be offered a place with a top class soccer team. It's mixing oranges and ostriches together. There must be a better way to do this.
There's obviously more to say - there were lots of good things about the 1950s too. It's only looking back and making the contrast with modern times that we can say what was good and what was bad. For me, those days were just the way things were at that time. I wouldn't like to go back now to a cold, draughty, unheated house any more, or do without modern conveniences, and I make extensive use of the mapping apps I've put on my phone, which would have looked utterly miraculous in the 50's. The biggest and most important thing I feel we have lost since those days is freedom, particularly for youngsters. By the time I was 8 years old, I had explored all our neighbourhood by myself for a mile around. and I took myself off to school and back by myself every day, about a mile and a half away - either on foot or by bus, later on my bike. When I was a little older, 10/11 or so, during holidays I used to buy day tickets on our city bus network and spent all day on my own travelling the extent of the network and exploring the city. I often used to get the bus into the city centre and spend ages exploring the shops and the back streets there. No-one seems to feel it's safe to let kids of that age do this sort of thing on their own any more. I think we all grew up earlier and become more self sufficient earlier in those days, and that is a really great loss in my opinion.
Mum had to do all our washing by hand and had a mangle in the garden for squeezing them dry before putting them on the clothes line (which immediately prompted the heavens to open and rinse them all with sooty raindrops from the smoke coming out of the chimneys all around us. We had no fridge, no freezer, no vacuum cleaner (mum did it all with a brush and pan), and it was difficult to keep food fresh for more than a day or two, so mum went shopping every day for perishable groceries. We had no car, so all this was done on foot. Those were very labour-intensive days
We were constantly under threat as well from diseases that are eradicated now, or easily treatable. Measles, mumps, polio, diphtheria, rubella were all pretty common, and there were occasional outbreaks of smallpox in the city where we lived. It didn't bother us (much) then, in that we knew no better, and things had improved a lot since the previous generation, but modern folks would be terrified by it judging by the recent reaction to the pandemic, which was pretty tame compared with the stuff that was circulating all the time in the 1950s (though obviously much more widespread).
In those days, corporal punishment was still encouraged and used in schools and kids were pretty frightened of many of the teachers - I don't think modern youngsters would be too happy with that. I must say though that as a fairly timid child myself, this maybe gave me a lot more protection from bullies than would be the case today.
I think where modern youngsters have a possible case is over the cost of tertiary education. My generation in the UK lies between the earlier ones and the later ones that both had to pay through the nose for it. I didn’t - it was funded in the UK almost entirely by the state from the 1950s through to the 1980s. We had a strict limit on how many people could go to uni though. It was rationed by ability and you needed to be in the top 10-20% of achievers academically to get there. Once we decided everyone should have the opportunity to go, it became no longer possible for the state to fund it entirely and people today have to pay enormous sums for it out of their own pockets. I have mixed feelings about this - there is a very worthy aim to give youngsters a chance to better themselves and break out of age-old class boundaries. The trouble is that tertiary education is still focused on academic ability, and to be honest only a minority of us are actually suited to this. We have turned the universities in the UK into a device for social engineering and this seems to me to be doing the people who pass through them a grave disservice. I think we were better served in my day when we paid very little ourselves, but only those who had the relevant sort of talents and interests would go. What we've done is a bit like if we said that soccer is a way through our class barriers, so everyone should be offered a place with a top class soccer team. It's mixing oranges and ostriches together. There must be a better way to do this.
There's obviously more to say - there were lots of good things about the 1950s too. It's only looking back and making the contrast with modern times that we can say what was good and what was bad. For me, those days were just the way things were at that time. I wouldn't like to go back now to a cold, draughty, unheated house any more, or do without modern conveniences, and I make extensive use of the mapping apps I've put on my phone, which would have looked utterly miraculous in the 50's. The biggest and most important thing I feel we have lost since those days is freedom, particularly for youngsters. By the time I was 8 years old, I had explored all our neighbourhood by myself for a mile around. and I took myself off to school and back by myself every day, about a mile and a half away - either on foot or by bus, later on my bike. When I was a little older, 10/11 or so, during holidays I used to buy day tickets on our city bus network and spent all day on my own travelling the extent of the network and exploring the city. I often used to get the bus into the city centre and spend ages exploring the shops and the back streets there. No-one seems to feel it's safe to let kids of that age do this sort of thing on their own any more. I think we all grew up earlier and become more self sufficient earlier in those days, and that is a really great loss in my opinion.
Last edited:
- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,627
- 247,712
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
One day we will look back at these times and think how quaint it was to have a little pocket device that we had to click on to make do things