New York attorney general seeks to dissolve NRA...

[BmorePat87]

(08-07-2020, 03:46 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I believe it's incorporated in New York but originated in Virginia. Regardless, you fail to address the crucial point, does malpractice by senior members justify dissolution? 
 
On its own, no.  But you established the criteria by comparing it to the fly by night Trump organizations.  By your own argument you made the organization's age and inherent earnestness a point of validity.


We mostly agree.  Where we differ is whether the management's improper actions warrant dissolution, or more importantly, in this instance, the request for dissolution.


Not at all, at least not intentionally.  I'll certainly give you the merit of this accusation from you perspective, although I find it of lesser merit when considering your lack of similar condemnation for other posters more in ideological lockstep with your own positions. I think we both know the reason for this statement.  If not I'll happily elucidate further.


By your own admission there are "differences".  I would posit that such "differences" are so substantial as to make the comparison meaningless, and, possibly, intentionally inflammatory.

You asked 3 rhetorical questions, none of which were "does malpractice by senior members justify dissolution?". I am not sure how I can "fail to address the crucial point" if it was not part of your post, however, I did answer that in the post I made prior to that:

"If what is alleged is true, under New York law I think it's a fair route to take given the severity of the offenses."

I do not see the logic in saying that the age of an organization becomes a consideration because I, an internet commentator, mentioned that New York has sought dissolution before. I also did not use the Trump Organization as "criteria". You literally quoted me in the post before listing the things they are alleged to have been done as reason that "something has to be done". 

As to whether the years of fraud by executives warrants the action, this is why the court is involved, as I noted. 

You're calling for consideration of opposing views, but you're also using language to implies ignorance for any position other than the one you've taken on this, even as I have made sure to state my opinions as just that "if the allegations are true" and note the need for the courts to weigh in. 

I don't think bringing up that the state has taken this route before makes the reference "meaningless", though I understand that it would appear that way if you are attempting to take that comment as a complete apples to apples comparison, which never occurred.