Charlie Hebdo Attack

[Ivytalk]

Jesus Christ. What a loser. Druggie, shitty writer, stupid self-important limey who couldn't hang on to Katy Perry. Klam, you have hit rock bottom. Even for you.

He impressed the **** out of me with his Mark Maron WTF interview. Then, "Get Him to the Greek" - one of the most under-rated comedies in years. Then, his appearance on "Morning Joe" - oh the establishment
media irreverence!

He's been off drugs and booze for years and he's a deep thinker.

Yep, probably not for you...

Gawd, klam, anybody who gets a short gig on The Guardian gets on your Rushmore. Sad. He's about as deep a thinker as houndawg.

[kalm]

He impressed the **** out of me with his Mark Maron WTF interview. Then, "Get Him to the Greek" - one of the most under-rated comedies in years. Then, his appearance on "Morning Joe" - oh the establishment
media irreverence!

He's been off drugs and booze for years and he's a deep thinker.

Yep, probably not for you...

Gawd, klam, anybody who gets a short gig on The Guardian gets on your Rushmore. Sad. He's about as deep a thinker as houndawg.

I haven't checked out the Guardian much since Greenwald left but I'm glad you're reading it enough to know Brand is published there.

HD is a solid thinker too. It must be sad going through life rejecting out of hand the ideas of those who challenge your thinking or who you politically disagree with. Some of the best things I've seen written on these boards are from conks like you and I enjoy having my preconceived notions challenged.

Viva la établissement!

[CAA Flagship]

Jesus Christ. What a loser. Druggie, shitty writer, stupid self-important limey who couldn't hang on to Katy Perry. Klam, you have hit rock bottom. Even for you.

He impressed the shit out of me with his Mark Maron WTF interview. Then, "Get Him to the Greek" - one of the most under-rated comedies in years. Then, his appearance on "Morning Joe" - oh the establishment media irreverence!

He's been off drugs and booze for years and he's a deep thinker.

Yep, probably not for you...

There are many "deep thinkers". The difference is that this guy has a big mouth and a gullible audience of fellow whiners.

[kalm]

He impressed the shit out of me with his Mark Maron WTF interview. Then, "Get Him to the Greek" - one of the most under-rated comedies in years. Then, his appearance on "Morning Joe" - oh the establishment media irreverence!

He's been off drugs and booze for years and he's a deep thinker.

Yep, probably not for you...

There are many "deep thinkers". The difference is that this guy has a big mouth and a gullible audience of fellow whiners.

Whining? He's rich and has a good life. Hmmmm

[Ivytalk]

Gawd, klam, anybody who gets a short gig on The Guardian gets on your Rushmore. Sad. He's about as deep a thinker as houndawg.

I haven't checked out the Guardian much since Greenwald left but I'm glad you're reading it enough to know Brand is published there.

HD is a solid thinker too. It must be sad going through life rejecting out of hand the ideas of those who challenge your thinking or who you politically disagree with. Some of the best things I've seen written on these boards are from conks like you and I enjoy having my preconceived notions challenged.

Viva la établissement!

HD has never had an original thought. And don't patronize me with that "challenge your thinking" crap. You demonize people who stand their ground. For example, I've given up trying to persuade you that corporate personhood is the prevailing legal standard. On gay marriage, my thinking has been brought more toward the center by my daughter (who's straight) and others that I know. All you do is post links and toss grenades.

[travelinman67]

I haven't checked out the Guardian much since Greenwald left but I'm glad you're reading it enough to know Brand is published there.

HD is a solid thinker too. It must be sad going through life rejecting out of hand the ideas of those who challenge your thinking or who you politically disagree with. Some of the best things I've seen written on these boards are from conks like you and I enjoy having my preconceived notions challenged.

Viva la établissement!

HD has never had an original thought. And don't patronize me with that "challenge your thinking" crap. You demonize people who stand their ground. For example, I've given up trying to persuade you that corporate personhood is the prevailing legal standard. On gay marriage, my thinking has been brought more toward the center by my daughter (who's straight) and others that I know. All you do is post links and toss grenades.

Troof

aka, Trolling

[houndawg]

I haven't checked out the Guardian much since Greenwald left but I'm glad you're reading it enough to know Brand is published there.

HD is a solid thinker too. It must be sad going through life rejecting out of hand the ideas of those who challenge your thinking or who you politically disagree with. Some of the best things I've seen written on these boards are from conks like you and I enjoy having my preconceived notions challenged.

Viva la établissement!

HD has never had an original thought. And don't patronize me with that "challenge your thinking" crap. You demonize people who stand their ground. For example, I've given up trying to persuade you that corporate personhood is the prevailing legal standard. On gay marriage, my thinking has been brought more toward the center by my daughter (who's straight) and others that I know. All you do is post links and toss grenades.

Downright uncharitable, you are...I'm not sure I'll ever fully recover emotionally from the harsh judgement of such a protean mind.

[Ivytalk]

HD has never had an original thought. And don't patronize me with that "challenge your thinking" crap. You demonize people who stand their ground. For example, I've given up trying to persuade you that corporate personhood is the prevailing legal standard. On gay marriage, my thinking has been brought more toward the center by my daughter (who's straight) and others that I know. All you do is post links and toss grenades.

Downright uncharitable, you are...I'm not sure I'll ever fully recover emotionally from the harsh judgement of such a protean mind.

Ah, poundpud. I knew you had yourself on speed dial. How's that winter wheat coming?

[kalm]

I haven't checked out the Guardian much since Greenwald left but I'm glad you're reading it enough to know Brand is published there.

HD is a solid thinker too. It must be sad going through life rejecting out of hand the ideas of those who challenge your thinking or who you politically disagree with. Some of the best things I've seen written on these boards are from conks like you and I enjoy having my preconceived notions challenged.

Viva la établissement!

HD has never had an original thought. And don't patronize me with that "challenge your thinking" crap. You demonize people who stand their ground. For example, I've given up trying to persuade you that corporate personhood is the prevailing legal standard. On gay marriage, my thinking has been brought more toward the center by my daughter (who's straight) and others that I know. All you do is post links and toss grenades.

If truth be told, a few of my favorite posters are you, Gannon and CID. You're not demons. You challenge my thinking, which I like. Now, occasionally the smarm and assholishness is unbearable and I feel obligated to respond in kind but it's not as though I don't consider the opposing views completely....

Regarding corporate personhood: you should give up. It's not as though you've ever made a persuasive argument.

A corporation, whether in a direct definition, or in light of the constitution, is not the same as a person. As I recently mentioned in another thread, all
You have to do is recognize that our country was founded on the rights of the individual to see that this is true.

But I haven't given up on you, my friend. I'm not a quitter.

[Ivytalk]

HD has never had an original thought. And don't patronize me with that "challenge your thinking" crap. You demonize people who stand their ground. For example, I've given up trying to persuade you that corporate personhood is the prevailing legal standard. On gay marriage, my thinking has been brought more toward the center by my daughter (who's straight) and others that I know. All you do is post links and toss grenades.

If truth be told, a few of my favorite posters are you, Gannon and CID. You're not demons. You challenge my thinking, which I like. Now, occasionally the smarm and assholishness is unbearable and I feel
obligated to respond in kind but it's not as though I don't consider the opposing views completely....

Regarding corporate personhood: you should give up. It's not as though you've ever made a persuasive argument.

A corporation, whether in a direct definition, or in light of the constitution, is not the same as a person. As I recently mentioned in another thread, all
You have to do is recognize that our country was founded on the rights of the individual to see that this is true.

But I haven't given up on you, my friend. I'm not a quitter.

You're not a quitter: you're just pigheaded. You confuse the legal term "person" -- meaning either a natural person (the plural of which is "people") or an artificial entity with legal rights -- with human beings. And if you parse the First Amendment correctly, you'll see that the freedoms of peaceable assembly and to petition the government for the redress of grievances are the only rights expressly associated with "the
people." Citizens United was correctly decided. But you're right: I'm wasting my time.

[Baldy]

If truth be told, a few of my favorite posters are you, Gannon and CID. You're not demons. You challenge my thinking, which I like. Now, occasionally the smarm and assholishness is unbearable and I feel
obligated to respond in kind but it's not as though I don't consider the opposing views completely....

Regarding corporate personhood: you should give up. It's not as though you've ever made a persuasive argument.

A corporation, whether in a direct definition, or in light of the constitution, is not the same as a person. As I recently mentioned in another thread, all
You have to do is recognize that our country was founded on the rights of the individual to see that this is true.

But I haven't given up on you, my friend. I'm not a quitter.

You're not a quitter: you're just pigheaded. You confuse the legal term "person" -- meaning either a natural person (the plural of which is "people") or an artificial entity with legal rights -- with human beings. And if you parse the First Amendment correctly, you'll see that the freedoms of peaceable assembly and to petition the government for the redress of grievances are the only rights expressly associated with "the
people." Citizens United was correctly decided. But you're right: I'm wasting my time.

[/thread]

I'm sure it was mostly sarcasm, but kalm even attempting to debate Ivy on the particulars of US corporate law has got to be one of the funniest things I've ever seen posted on this forum.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm having coffee this morning with the neighborhood neurosurgeon and we're gonna debate the minutia of Ventriculoperitoneal Shunts.

[kalm]

If truth be told, a few of my favorite posters are you, Gannon and CID. You're not demons. You challenge my thinking, which I like. Now, occasionally the smarm and assholishness is unbearable and I feel
obligated to respond in kind but it's not as though I don't consider the opposing views completely....

Regarding corporate personhood: you should give up. It's not as though you've ever made a persuasive argument.

A corporation, whether in a direct definition, or in light of the constitution, is not the same as a person. As I recently mentioned in another thread, all
You have to do is recognize that our country was founded on the rights of the individual to see that this is true.

But I haven't given up on you, my friend. I'm not a quitter.

You're not a quitter: you're just pigheaded. You confuse the legal term "person" -- meaning either a natural person (the plural of which is "people") or an artificial entity with legal rights -- with human beings. And if you parse the First Amendment correctly, you'll see that the freedoms of peaceable assembly and to petition the government for the redress of grievances are the only rights expressly associated with "the
people." Citizens United was correctly decided. But you're right: I'm wasting my time.

Why don't corporations enjoy all constitutional rights? Why can't they vote? Are they second class citizens? I think you're stretching the intent of the framers just a wee bit and I don't think they'd agree with you here.

I'm of course with Justice Stevens:

Third, Stevens argued that the majority's decision failed to recognize the dangers of the corporate form. Austin held that the prevention of corruption, including the distorting influence of a dominant funding source, was a sufficient reason for regulating corporate independent expenditures. In defending Austin, Stevens argued that the unique qualities of corporations and other artificial legal entities made them dangerous to democratic elections. These legal entities, he argued, have perpetual life, the ability to amass large sums of money, limited liability, no ability to vote, no morality, no purpose outside profit-making, and no loyalty. Therefore, he argued, the courts should permit legislatures to regulate corporate participation in the political process.

Legal entities, Stevens wrote, are not "We the People" for whom our Constitution was established.[30] Therefore, he argued, they should not be given speech protections under the First Amendment. The First Amendment, he argued, protects individual self-expression, self-realization and the communication of ideas. Corporate spending is the "furthest from the core of political expression" protected by the Constitution, he argued, citing Federal Election Commission v. Beaumont,[39] and corporate spending on politics should be viewed as a business transaction designed by the officers or the boards of directors for no purpose other than profit-making. Stevens called corporate spending "more transactional than ideological". Stevens also pointed out that any member of a corporation may spend personal money on promoting a campaign because BCRA only prohibited the use of general treasury money.

Fourth, Stevens attacked the majority's central argument: that the prohibition of spending guards free speech and allows the general public to receive all available information. Relying on Austin, Stevens argued that corporations "unfairly influence" the electoral process with vast sums of money that few individuals can match, which distorts the public debate. Because a typical voter can only absorb so much information during a relevant election period, Stevens described "unfair corporate influence" as the potential to outspend others, to push others out of prime broadcasting spots and to dominate the "marketplace of ideas".[30] This process, he argued, puts disproportionate focus on this speech and gives the impression of widespread support regardless of actual support. Thus, this process marginalizes the speech of other individuals and groups.

Stevens referred to the majority's argument that "there is no such thing as too much speech" as "facile" and a "straw man" argument. He called it an incorrect statement of First Amendment law because the Court recognizes numerous exceptions to free speech, such as fighting words, obscenity restrictions, time, place and manner restrictions, etc. Throughout the dissent, Stevens argued that the majority's "slogan" ignored the possibility that too much speech from one source could "drown out" other points of view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_U ... EC#Dissent" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'll admit we're both a bit pigheaded and will agree to disagree rather than go back down in the weeds.

[kalm]

You're not a quitter: you're just pigheaded. You confuse the legal term "person" -- meaning either a natural person (the plural of which is "people") or an artificial entity with legal rights -- with human beings. And if you parse the First Amendment correctly, you'll see that the freedoms of peaceable assembly and to petition the government for the redress of grievances are the only rights expressly associated with "the
people." Citizens United was correctly decided. But you're right: I'm wasting my time.

[/thread]

I'm sure it was mostly sarcasm, but kalm even attempting to debate Ivy on the particulars of US corporate law has got to be one of the funniest things I've ever seen posted on this forum.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm having coffee this morning with the neighborhood neurosurgeon and we're gonna debate the minutia of Ventriculoperitoneal Shunts.

Yeah, because all constitutional scholars agree on corporate rights.

[CAA Flagship]

Hey. Can we get back on topic here? We were talking about the eradication of stupid French people that choose death over hate-speech.

[Baldy]

[/thread]

I'm sure it was mostly sarcasm, but kalm even attempting to debate Ivy on the particulars of US corporate law has got to be one of the funniest things I've ever seen posted on this forum.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm having coffee this morning with the neighborhood neurosurgeon and we're gonna debate the minutia of Ventriculoperitoneal Shunts.

Yeah, because all constitutional scholars agree on corporate rights.

Oh please.

Hell, in another thread you're trying to pick a fight against James Madison (speaking of intent).

[CAA Flagship]

Topic.


STAY



ON



TOPIC


!!!!!!!!!

[kalm]

Topic.


STAY



ON



TOPIC


!!!!!!!!!

NO NEED TO YELL!!!!!!!

[GannonFan]

You're not a quitter: you're just pigheaded. You confuse the legal term "person" -- meaning either a natural person (the plural of which is "people") or an artificial entity with legal rights -- with human beings. And if you parse the First Amendment correctly, you'll see that the freedoms of peaceable assembly and to petition the government for the redress of grievances are the only rights expressly associated with "the
people." Citizens United was correctly decided. But you're right: I'm wasting my time.

Why don't corporations enjoy all constitutional rights? Why can't they vote? Are they second class citizens? I think you're stretching the intent of the framers just a wee bit and I don't think they'd agree with you here.

I'm of course with Justice Stevens:

Third, Stevens argued that the majority's decision failed to recognize the dangers of the corporate form. Austin held that the prevention of corruption, including the distorting influence of a dominant funding source, was a sufficient reason for regulating corporate independent expenditures. In defending Austin, Stevens argued that the unique qualities of corporations and other artificial legal entities made them dangerous to democratic elections. These legal entities, he argued, have perpetual life, the ability to amass large sums of money, limited liability, no ability to vote, no morality, no purpose outside profit-making, and no loyalty. Therefore, he argued, the courts should permit legislatures to regulate corporate participation in the political process.

Legal entities, Stevens wrote, are not "We the People" for whom our Constitution was established.[30] Therefore, he argued, they should not be given speech protections under the First Amendment. The First Amendment, he argued, protects individual self-expression, self-realization and the communication of ideas. Corporate spending is the "furthest from the core of political expression" protected by the Constitution, he argued, citing Federal Election Commission v. Beaumont,[39] and corporate spending on politics should be viewed as a business transaction designed by the officers or the boards of directors for no purpose other than profit-making. Stevens called corporate spending "more transactional than ideological". Stevens also pointed out that any member of a corporation may spend personal money on promoting a campaign because BCRA only prohibited the use of general treasury money.

Fourth, Stevens attacked the majority's central argument: that the prohibition of spending guards free speech and allows the general public to receive all available information. Relying on Austin, Stevens argued that corporations "unfairly influence" the electoral process with vast sums of money that few individuals can match, which distorts the public debate. Because a typical voter can only absorb so much information during a relevant election period, Stevens described "unfair corporate influence" as the potential to outspend others, to push others out of prime broadcasting spots and to dominate the "marketplace of ideas".[30] This process, he argued, puts disproportionate focus on this speech and gives the impression of widespread support regardless of actual support. Thus, this process marginalizes the speech of other individuals and groups.

Stevens referred to the majority's argument that "there is no such thing as too much speech" as "facile" and a "straw man" argument. He called it an incorrect statement of First Amendment law because the Court recognizes numerous exceptions to free speech, such as fighting words, obscenity restrictions, time, place and manner restrictions, etc. Throughout the dissent, Stevens argued that the majority's "slogan" ignored the possibility that too much speech from one source could "drown out" other points of view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_U ... EC#Dissent" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'll admit we're both a bit pigheaded and will agree to disagree rather than go back down in the weeds.

The problem that always exists is how much speech is "too much speech"? How do you decide that? Who gets to decide that? How does it change over time? How do you make sure you don't cut off speech then in your search for the nirvana of "just the right amount of speech"? The moment that you set a limit on how much speech someone can have you lose the freedom to go one step further and that's where the constitutional problem arises. This isn't a fire in the theater problem where limiting speech makes sense and is somewhat definable (although even there you have some debate). This is far more cloudy as to how to cut off speech, hence why the limits on it have always failed to pass constitutional muster.

[kalm]

Why don't corporations enjoy all constitutional rights? Why can't they vote? Are they second class citizens? I think you're stretching the intent of the framers just a wee bit and I don't think they'd agree with you here.

I'm of course with Justice Stevens:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_U ... EC#Dissent" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'll admit we're both a bit pigheaded and will agree to disagree rather than go back down in the weeds.

The problem that always exists is how much speech is "too much speech"? How do you decide that? Who gets to decide that? How does it change over time? How do you make sure you don't cut off speech then in your search for the nirvana of "just the right amount of speech"? The moment that you set a limit on how much speech someone can have you lose the freedom to go one step further and that's where the constitutional problem arises. This isn't a fire in the theater problem where limiting speech makes sense and is somewhat definable (although even there you have some debate). This is far more cloudy as to how to cut off speech, hence why the limits on it have always failed to pass constitutional muster.

Good points and it's a tough call, but you have to agree that the current system also potentially harms speech.

[GannonFan]

The problem that always exists is how much speech is "too much speech"? How do you decide that? Who gets to decide that? How does it change over time? How do you make sure you don't cut off speech then in your search for the nirvana of "just the right amount of speech"? The moment that you set a limit on how much speech someone can have you lose the freedom to go one step further and that's where the constitutional problem arises. This isn't a fire in the theater problem where limiting speech makes sense and is somewhat definable (although even there you have some debate). This is far more cloudy as to how to cut off speech, hence why the limits on it have always failed to pass constitutional muster.

Good points and it's a tough call, but you have to agree that the current system also potentially harms speech.

Until there's a better proven way to do it, I'll stick with the system that allows all speech. I like knowing that I can hear anything I want in the current system, no matter how wacky the speech is. I won't know what I'm missing the moment that we start deciding what is "too much speech" for me to hear/read.

[CID1990]

I just realized that we're defending free speech on a continent where you can (and will) be jailed for denying the Holocaust.

Ich bin Charlie

[JoltinJoe]

My wife and I just took out a subscription to Charlie Hebdo and, yes, we can read French.

That's extremely un-American of you... (But cute)

I try to speak Spanish to my girlfriend but she only speaks C++ and HTML
which counted as languages at Carnegie Mellon... (Who knew?)

My son is taking a C++ class this summer. Says it is "essential." Can you help me here? Why is C++ so important?

We can go offline, if you'd like.

[andy7171]

You're not a quitter: you're just pigheaded. You confuse the legal term "person" -- meaning either a natural person (the plural of which is "people") or an artificial entity with legal rights -- with human beings. And if you parse the First Amendment correctly, you'll see that the freedoms of peaceable assembly and to petition the government for the redress of grievances are the only rights expressly associated with "the
people." Citizens United was correctly decided. But you're right: I'm wasting my time.

[/thread]

I'm sure it was mostly sarcasm, but kalm even attempting to debate Ivy on the particulars of US corporate law has got to be one of the funniest things I've ever seen posted on this forum.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm having coffee this morning with the neighborhood neurosurgeon and we're gonna debate the minutia of Ventriculoperitoneal Shunts.

[kalm]

[/thread]

I'm sure it was mostly sarcasm, but kalm even attempting to debate Ivy on the particulars of US corporate law has got to be one of the funniest things I've ever seen posted on this forum.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm having coffee this morning with the neighborhood neurosurgeon and we're gonna debate the minutia of Ventriculoperitoneal Shunts.

Already rebutted. Stick to poop threads, Andy!

[Baldy]

Already rebutted.