'tis one of the weapons of the disinfo war to use double meanings.
Once one is aware of the tactic, one can unravel the real meanings. Sometimes the phrases are double-barrelled as well. Those ones often get parrotted all around the ether. So, you hear it oftern, and can be lulled into thinking it is a THING.
I fully agree, and further investigation led me to seeing the angle of presenting this "thing" that many want to grasp onto to find meaning and a simple answer to theories floating around on the ether, which also leads to it easily being debunked.
I did find something interesting though. Sub-section 15 (A) is presented all over the ether and is easily debunked, but a further look at sub-section 10 from the same source indicates that legally, a state or local government entity can be seen as a person.
What happened with D.C. in 1871? Were there any federal corporations before 1871?
The intention was supposedly to clear up a homeless issue, and the shocking dirt roads that were in Washington and Georgetown. (sound familiar?) The District's government was incorporated. The claim was that running two towns, with two municipality organizations, was less efficient than incorporating and becoming a district (it will be cheaper they said).
The implied argument was: now they were a corporation, laws would apply differently:
In 1873, President Grant appointed an influential member of the board of public works, Alexander Robey Shepherd, to the post of governor. Shepherd authorized large-scale municipal projects, which greatly modernized Washington. In doing so however, the governor spent three times the money that had been budgeted for capital improvements, bankrupting the city. (oops)
In 1874, Congress replaced the District's quasi-elected territorial government with an appointed three-member Board of Commissioners. Direct rule by Congress continued until the 1973 passage of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, a century later.
Not saying I agree, just opening the subject at a normie level.
That was akshully Quite funny - I Lol.
It was, I will admit that. Bound to happen when not being specific enough.
'tis one of the weapons of the disinfo war to use double meanings.
Once one is aware of the tactic, one can unravel the real meanings. Sometimes the phrases are double-barrelled as well. Those ones often get parrotted all around the ether. So, you hear it oftern, and can be lulled into thinking it is a THING.
I fully agree, and further investigation led me to seeing the angle of presenting this "thing" that many want to grasp onto to find meaning and a simple answer to theories floating around on the ether, which also leads to it easily being debunked.
I did find something interesting though. Sub-section 15 (A) is presented all over the ether and is easily debunked, but a further look at sub-section 10 from the same source indicates that legally, a state or local government entity can be seen as a person.
What happened with D.C. in 1871? Were there any federal corporations before 1871?
Quick Google:
The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 is an Act of Congress that repealed the individual charters of the cities of Washington and Georgetown and established a new territorial government for the whole District of Columbia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_Organic_Act_of_1871#:~:text=The%20District%20of%20Columbia%20Organic,the%20whole%20District%20of%20Columbia.
The intention was supposedly to clear up a homeless issue, and the shocking dirt roads that were in Washington and Georgetown. (sound familiar?) The District's government was incorporated. The claim was that running two towns, with two municipality organizations, was less efficient than incorporating and becoming a district (it will be cheaper they said).
The implied argument was: now they were a corporation, laws would apply differently:
Not saying I agree, just opening the subject at a normie level.
There's an 8 part series on Apple TV on how all these classic albums came out that year.
Good edit