Let’s start by agreeing that, while everyone sweats, there are two distinct types. Type one is where you palms become moist only when you are nervous.

If this is you then your condition is not hyperhidrosis and the most basic cure will more than likely be all that you need. Antiperspirants with around 20-30% AlCl will do a great job of eliminating the mild case of sweaty palms. Use every other day for several days until you sweaty palms dry up.

On the other hand, if you are experiencing excessive sweat you probably have a symptom called hyperhidrosis. If you have this situation, I strongly recommend you investigate treating the condition with iontophoresis. Iontophoresis is anFDA approved procedure that is completely safe. This mechanical treatment is FDA approved, and enjoys a success rate of over 80%. Iontophoresis treatments will generally show results in as few as 5 to 10 40 minute sessions.

I have put together my personal apparatus at home because I was not in a position to pay almost a thousand dollars for a commercially built device.

My emotional state is not your business. I have perfect BP and heart rate of a 20 year old. As for how I choose to express myself, I’ll do it any damn way I please and if you don’t like it, you can suck it. Being that two of my degrees are in English and Law, I’m betting I can express myself in ways you’ve never even thought of so why don’t you worry about YOUR presentation instead of mine. Because much like my emotional state, what I write and how I write is, duh, also not your business.

And you’re right, you’re not a corporation. You’re a troll.

So any opinion you have of me is exactly meaningless.

The “you” was “corporations” but I didn’t expect you to be smart enough to figure that out. Luckily I don’t write with clowns like you in mind as the target audience.

I hope that answers all of your inane questions.

Have a nice day.

There is a dark reality underlying this, as there always seems to be with all topics Americana; Jefferson is credited with expressing it best: The masses, are *****.

‘se’right?

you said
Play by the rules as set by We the People, not You the Corporate, or suck it. Move off shore and take your graft with you. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

who is the “you” you’re talking about?

i am not a corporation.

“Tightening the Corporate Grip: The Stakes at the Supreme Court

by Robert Weissman

Can things get still worse in Washington?

Yes, they can. And they will, if the Supreme Court decides for corporations and against real human beings and their democracy in a case the Court will be hearing today, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Until reaching the Supreme Court last year, this case has involved a narrow issue about whether an anti-Hillary Clinton movie made in the heat of the last presidential election is covered by restrictions in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. However, in a highly unusual move announced on the last day of the Supreme Court’s 2008 term, the justices announced they wanted to reconsider two other pivotal decisions that limit the role of corporate money in politics.

The Court ordered a special oral argument on the issue, before the full start of their 2009 term in October.

The Court will today hear argument on whether prior decisions blocking corporations from spending their money on “independent expenditures” for electoral candidates should be overturned. “Independent expenditures” are funds spent without coordination with a candidate’s campaign. The rationale for such a move would be that existing rules interfere with corporations’ First Amendment rights to free speech.

Overturning the court’s precedents on corporate election expenditures would be nothing short of a disaster. Corporations already dominate our political process — through political action committees, fundraisers, high-paid lobbyists and personal contributions by corporate insiders, often bundled together to increase their impact, threats to move jobs abroad and more.

On the dominant issues of the day — climate change, health care and financial regulation — corporate interests are leveraging their political investments to sidetrack vital measures to protect the planet, expand health care coverage while controlling costs, and prevent future financial meltdowns.

The current system demands reform to limit corporate influence. Public funding of elections is the obvious and necessary (though very partial) first step.

Yet the Supreme Court may actually roll back the limits on corporate electoral spending now in place. These limits are very inadequate, but they do block unlimited spending from corporate treasuries to influence election outcomes. Rolling back those limits will unleash corporations to ramp up their spending still further, with a potentially decisive chilling effect on candidates critical of the Chamber of Commerce agenda.

The damage will be double, because a Court ruling on constitutional grounds would effectively overturn the laws in place in two dozen states similarly barring corporate expenditures on elections.

More than 100 years ago, reacting to what many now call the First Gilded Age, Congress acted to prohibit direct corporate donations to electoral candidates. Corporate expenditures in electoral races have been prohibited for more than 60 years.

These rules reflected the not-very-controversial observation that for-profit corporations have a unique ability to gather enormous funds and that expenditures from the corporate treasury are certain to undermine democracy – understood to mean rule by the people. Real human beings, not corporations.

In arguing to uphold the existing corporate expenditure restrictions, the Federal Election Commission has emphasized these common sense observations.

“For-profit corporations have attributes that no natural person shares,” the FEC argues. Noting that corporations are state-created — not natural entities — the FEC explains that “for-profit corporations are inherently more likely than individuals to engage in electioneering behavior that poses a risk of actual or apparent corruption of office-holders.” The FEC also notes that corporate spending on elections does not reflect the views of a company’s owners (shareholders).

Although the signs aren’t good, there is no certainty how the Court will decide Citizens United. There is some hope that the Court will decide that it is inappropriate to roll back such longstanding and important campaign finance rules, in a case where the issue was not presented in the lower courts, and where the litigants’ dispute can be decided on much narrower grounds.

Public Citizen is organizing people to protest against a roll back of existing restrictions on corporate campaign expenditures. To join the effort, go to http://www.dontgetrolled.org. People are pledging to protest in diverse ways — from street actions to letter writing — today, and in the event of a bad decision, and also networking for solutions to corporate-corrupted elections.

Ours is a government of the people, by the people, for the people — not the corporations and their money. Corporations don’t vote, and they shouldn’t be permitted to spend limitless amounts of money to influence election outcomes.”

Corporations are a legal fiction with the only goal being profit at any cost. They don’t give a damn about law or ethics or even their own employees as long as their P/L statement reads in black ink. Corporations by their very nature are amoral constructs that will seek fascism whenever left unattended and unregulated.

Unions are the only organization other than natural citizens that should have any right to petition the government. Corporations should have to shut up, sit down and deal with what they are GIVEN. Play by the rules as set by We the People, not You the Corporate, or suck it. Move off shore and take your graft with you. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. New compliant business will arise to take your stalls in the marketplace and when the rules are rewritten, we’ll give them as much legal advantage over the old corrupt corporate forms once they offshore as to make doing business in this country by a bad actor like Exxon or Halliburton will be impossible. That’s called “fair”. The corporate morons screwed with and broke our governmental processes then they should be excluded from said process other than to avail themselves of criminal court and pertinent civil litigation to their ACTUAL business transactions – not their theoretical rights as “a person” because, duh, that’s a LIE. Corporations do, after all, only exist by governmental dispensation and as such should be subject to heavy regulation and strict limits on their participation and actions. They are not real people. Restrict the Hell out them. They work better that way. Less room for abuse. Unions represent real people and are inherently democratic. Corporations are anti-democratic institutions. It’s their nature. That’s why Jefferson hated them so.

Corporations are the problem and unions could be part of the solution.

Apples and oranges.

That’s the difference.

Recently, in Caperton v. Massey (June ’09) he came down on the side of sanity.

“But Potter, who has defended the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (popularly known as “McCain-Feingold”) in the lower and Supreme Court, argues that the founders never meant for the First Amendment to apply to corporations, which he considers “creatures of the state,” not deserving the same rights as individual citizens:

We do think speech is a good thing. The question though is should it be citizens, individuals, voters, who are speaking? Or should it be this artificial corporate entity, which we have, through law, given enormous economic power to? And what the court has said all along is there is a difference between the two. The court has never said that corporations have the right to unlimited independent political speech.”

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09042009/profile.html

http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/09/obama-must-prove-gender.html