“How To Make Money Online” – $650-$2000 – “PAID DAILY”!! (Fast & EASY “Work From Home” Business)
“How To Make Money” Online “Paid Daily” Fast & Easy “Work From Home Business”: Join Here – bit.ly Contact me with any questions at (480) 389-1087 or send an email to executivelifebiz@gmail.com Skype ID:alex98969 ————————————————————— “How To Make Money” Online “Paid Daily” Fast & Easy “Work From Home Business”: This is the fastest and most exciting way to make money that I have EVER experienced!! This program comes with amazing products which includes over 00 worth of internet marketing products that you can install and use for yourself as well as sell for which ever price you choose because you own 100% resell rights!! But for me,the best (and my favorite) product that is included with this program is the AMAZING step-by-step LIVE weekly training as well as an unheard of coaching & support system!! I have been in this industry a long time and NEVER have I experienced this level of success or had more fun with ANYTHING else I have been involved in!! Weather you are a beginner or a veteran of this industry, I highly doubt there is a better or more lucrative program to get started in! -Especially for beginners because of the step-by-step training and coaching which is all included! Please Take the time to watch the overview webinar here -bit.ly you contact me with any questions… You will be glad you did as you will get all of the details from the CEO and creator of the program in the overview webinar. bit.ly However, I do try …
Video Rating: 4 / 5
Ben Mankiewicz and Michael Shure of The Young Turks speak with Chris Campbell, the executive director of Wolf-PAC. Help fight the corporate takeover of our government: www.wolf-pac.com twitter.com www.wolf-pac.com
Video Rating: 4 / 5
Related posts:
OMG A-freaking-MAZING! Why arent you more popular?
good work you deserve more subs.
this is E.P.I.C.!
Im liking this shit…. Favorited
Checking out all of your other vids
Good Video!
VERY GOOD!
the best lol
Cool stuff!! Thanks…
Im checking out your other videos, nice job!
Youtube should give him a medal or two for his effort. His uploading only working stuff.
K, I just fell off my chair it was so great.
Thumbs up!
I need to learn how to make videos like this, i am truely amazed!
Cant believe how good this video is
the quality of the vid is amazing what did u use to record?
do you do other kinds of videos?
Come on when is the next video going to be out I LOVE your videos.
Nice video Kid!
You should get automatic partnership for this video.
Beast!
i love this shit!!!
Looking forward to future videos! =)
Wrong. You’re responsible only for $10,000, not $100,000 (which you should be).
Do a simple google search on Limited Liability and click the Wikipedia link. It only takes a jiffy.
No, it’s proportional…you are automatically on the hook for your investment value, as well as whatever percent that becomes of the corportate entity.
If 5 of us each throw in $10,000, and our $50,000 venture is worth $2 Million in 3 years…we get sued for $500,000…we’re each responsible for 20% of that $500,000
This is limited liability, and you need to stop making an arse out of yourself
The innocent parties = the victims of the damages/losses etc. The guilty = those responsible.
The guilty should be held responsible for all damages/debts.
Ltd. does NOT mean that. It means owners shall not have to pay any victims for debts/damages they caused which exceed amount they invested. See any dictionary etc.
It can only have been attained by political bribery (common throughout history).
You know there’s a saying “history is written by the victors”. Except this one’s easily clarified.
Who are these guilty and innocent parties you speak of lol?..limited liability everyone is on the hook, that’s what it means. No one investor can be solely liable for the debts/damages of a group.
I have ‘looked it up,’ in fact, I’ve read extensively about the genesis of limited liability by the Dutch VOC (Dutch East India Company),
And I’ve cited the works of two of the foremost experts on early modern Europe and the genesis of capitalism
Try to unjumble those thoughts and look up ltd. liability.
You say it “protects investors and creditors etc”. (What do you mean by “etc”?). So here are the facts: Limited liability charges that the OWNERS not be held liable for anything beyond what they invested, even if they caused debts and damages beyond that, thereby TRANSFERRING that liability from the guilty to the innocent parties. Thus, it can only have been a law attained by political bribery, unjustifiable and creates bad incentives.
Fernand Braudel is considered to be one of the three most important economic historians of the 20th century, j.s.
Once more, limited liability means equitable liability amongst investors, and furthermore it means that the corporate person (entity) can be completely dissolved in order to secure reparations for damages.
This isn’t hard. $50,000 may quickly turn into $1,000,000, but that’s the corporate person’s worth, not any one investor.
Ltd liability protects investors and creditors etc
A simple look-up on the meaning of ltd. proves you wrong.
Owners are not held liable for anything beyond what they invested, even if they caused debts and damages beyond that.
It’s nothing more than a law attained by political bribery – which of course has happened throughout history (government has always partnered with rich people, up until today).
If your cited “historians” don’t acknowledge that they either 1. are lying 2. neglected to read the law or do a simple google/dictionary search.
You’re talking about banks and their allowing wealthy individuals to engage in ‘debt restructuring’ rather than be sued themselves, as you or I would.
That is not limited liability.
Now you’re accusing two of the most famous economic historians of the 20th century of being bought and paid for….um wtf lol?
Your idea is preposterous. Directors are hired by the owners. If the owners want to transfer liability to them, they must do so in contract, not by having a law that does so automatically. The owners are responsible. No amount of wriggling away or contorted logic can change that. Ltd liability absolves owners thereby introducing bad incentives.
Ltd liability, in action, forces innocent parties to bear the brunt of damages caused by guilty parties. It was a law attained only by political bribery.
I think you dont understand that, like joseph stated, ltd liability protects just a individual shareholder from being liable for everything.. I think the people(wreckless directors etc) who are responsible for all these company failures need to be held personally liable but people arent going to invest if they contribute say $10,000 but risk being sued for everything they have.
What is there to understand? I fully support equitable liability between shareholders/owners, based on their level of investment, but it must be full in total. What more is there to understand? Or don’t you know?
“Scholar’s work” is not immune from paid-for propaganda, nor being that in its entirety.
All you have to do is look up limited liability law as written in the statutes. It’s easy.
It most definitely DOES absolve guilty parties of liability for damages and debts, thus transferring it to innocent parties.
Mitt Romney and Donald Trump are living examples of causing multiple bankruptcies to their advantage, i.e. committing theft, under this law, along with many others.
It’s not rocket engineering.
No, I am not wrong. In fact, I am the only one on this thread citing scholars’ work in economics and economic history.
Limited liability is not an ‘arrangement,’ it is a legal principle ensuring that no one investor is held liable for the damage of a corporation (which has many investors/stockholders)……this isnt rocket engineering.
What you’ve described sounds more akin to corporations deemed too large to sue, like Walmart’s case, but that’s not limited liability, lol
I never denied equitable liability is not INCLUDED in “limited liability” arrangements, I’m saying that’s not the sum total of limited liability. Limited liability does indeed transfer liability from guilty parties to innocent parties when the guilty parties’ debts and damages exceed the total amount invested. Under no circumstances can this be justified. “All of the gains, none of the losses”, besides incentivizing bankruptcy in many cases. You’re just simply wrong.
Start a pac to lobby for your interests bc congress is bought and paid for by special interests whose interests are against your interests……….Ahhhhh, refreshingly interesting.
Don’t mind me just watching and taking in the atmosphere
watch?v=qp9dc9im3-M
I already said Im not going to argue with you about it. You have an opinion, good. Your right some costs do get externalized as a result of ltd liability. However I feel you still don’t have a proper understanding of this matter, and would do well to do a bit more research of your own as Joseph also suggested
Ben bores me.
Why are only queers involved in this Wolf PAC, they should change the name to Fudge PAC amirite?
Yes, however I dont take it too seriously like leftist retards.
cont.. American’s will try to impeach a president for getting a blowjob but sit idle by as Obama signs NDAA. I think “direct militant action” is a joke. Having said that, I think innovative proactive participation in sociopolitical activism isn’t much more than a joke. Call me a nihilist, but there is a very important reason why the elite have existed for thousands of years as parasites on the rest of us. It’s pretty ingenuous actually.
MEGA TROLL ALERT!!!! Same boring shit over and over.
Whatever funny imputationyou come up with….
“…but the alternative…would be direct militant action?” I never suggested violent upheaval. The answer will absolutely NOT be a simple solution. We need to stand together in ANY way we can. Boycott oil for a month, refuse to render services to elected officials who are bought, inventing a separate monetary system exclusive of the one already in place are just a few ideas. Notice how all of these ideas challenge the current system without conflict. We need to think outside the box.
Sure. I think there should be a “Rick Santorum” rule, where not political coffer can have more funds than the amount of money Santorum used to run for president this past election. Then, perhaps, a person can donate up to $500, while an organization can donate up to $250 per se. And of course, different rules would apply for other elections but with he same principles. Everybody but faceless entities want money out of politics, but where’s the constitutional amendment.