Oh, I'm sorry. You actually think you scored a point there.Baldy wrote:kalm wrote:
Already rebutted.
Tell Joe Jr that a C++ just won't do. If he wants to get into Fordham, he needs to pull at least an A-.JoltinJoe wrote:My son is taking a C++ class this summer. Says it is "essential." Can you help me here? Why is C++ soChizzang wrote:
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?)
important?
We can go offline, if you'd like.
Piss off!CAA Flagship wrote:TOPIC!!!!!!!
This!Ivytalk wrote:Piss off!CAA Flagship wrote:TOPIC!!!!!!!
Whoever has 5 votes rules.kalm wrote:This!Ivytalk wrote:
Piss off!
Give Ivy a chance to create more legal fiction!
Ivytalk wrote:Whoever has 5 votes rules.kalm wrote:
This!
Give Ivy a chance to create more legal fiction!
Surrender? Very funny, Mr. Justice Klam, dissenting!kalm wrote:Ivytalk wrote:
Whoever has 5 votes rules.
I honorably accept your surrender, kind sir!
kalm wrote:Oh, I'm sorry. You actually think you scored a point there.Baldy wrote:
4 Supreme Court justices contradict IT's opinion that corporations are entitled to the same 1st amendment rights as people.
For further information, please see above posts. ^
Thanks!
He wants to go to MIT, so he needs an A+.Ivytalk wrote:Tell Joe Jr that a C++ just won't do. If he wants to get into Fordham, he needs to pull at least an A-.JoltinJoe wrote:
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.
So now you're a constitutional scholar too!Baldy wrote:kalm wrote:
Oh, I'm sorry. You actually think you scored a point there.
4 Supreme Court justices contradict IT's opinion that corporations are entitled to the same 1st amendment rights as people.
For further information, please see above posts. ^
Thanks!
The 4 justices who don't agree are the 4 idiots who believe the Constitution is a living breathing document and should be changed on a whim.
Much like you in another thread quoting the Constitution in your argument that government is a charity, when the guy who wrote the Constitution clearly stated that government isn't a charity.
It's not about scoring a "point", it about showing you how fundamentally and obviously flawed your "logic" is, that's all.
You're right, the founders, especially Madison and Jefferson were clear on the dangers of redistribution just like they were clear on the dangers of consolidated wealth and power.“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated is copied from the old Articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers, and it is a fact that it was preferred in the new instrument for that very reason, as less liable than any other to misconstruction.”
James Madison
kalm wrote:'Flaggy wrote
TOPIC!!!
kalm wrote:So now you're a constitutional scholar too!Baldy wrote:
The 4 justices who don't agree are the 4 idiots who believe the Constitution is a living breathing document and should be changed on a whim.
Much like you in another thread quoting the Constitution in your argument that government is a charity, when the guy who wrote the Constitution clearly stated that government isn't a charity.
It's not about scoring a "point", it about showing you how fundamentally and obviously flawed your "logic" is, that's all.
You're right, the founders, especially Madison and Jefferson were clear on the dangers of redistribution just like they were clear on the dangers of consolidated wealth and power.“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated is copied from the old Articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers, and it is a fact that it was preferred in the new instrument for that very reason, as less liable than any other to misconstruction.”
James Madison
Then again, they owned slaves.
At least however they recognized the importance of consent through We the People. Again, government is a wealth distribution machine - whether it's feudal lords enjoying the wealth created by the labor of their serfs, the welfare queen chatting on her iPhone while buying groceries with food stamps before she hops back in the Escalade, the defense contractor making billions off of unnecessary wars he lobbied for, or Saudi Prince's cutting annual checks to their citizens out of the treasury. The limited government cat is out of the bag so it simply boils down to our opinions of what are noble expenditures.
"Give the king your justice, O God, and your righteousness to a king's son. May he judge your people with righteousness, and your poor with justice. May the mountains yield prosperity for the people, and the hills, in righteousness. May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor."
Psalm 72
WWJD?
Hey, you dragged the other thread in here...Baldy wrote:kalm wrote:
So now you're a constitutional scholar too!
You're right, the founders, especially Madison and Jefferson were clear on the dangers of redistribution just like they were clear on the dangers of consolidated wealth and power.
Then again, they owned slaves.
At least however they recognized the importance of consent through We the People. Again, government is a wealth distribution machine - whether it's feudal lords enjoying the wealth created by the labor of their serfs, the welfare queen chatting on her iPhone while buying groceries with food stamps before she hops back in the Escalade, the defense contractor making billions off of unnecessary wars he lobbied for, or Saudi Prince's cutting annual checks to their citizens out of the treasury. The limited government cat is out of the bag so it simply boils down to our opinions of what are noble expenditures.
"Give the king your justice, O God, and your righteousness to a king's son. May he judge your people with righteousness, and your poor with justice. May the mountains yield prosperity for the people, and the hills, in righteousness. May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor."
Psalm 72
WWJD?
Holy shit...bible verses, WWJD, wealth and power consolidation, wealth redistribution, welfare queens, unnecessary wars, etc. etc. etc. lots and lots of exposed nerves in that response. No need to get the vapors, klam or houndawg will accuse you of being a drama queen.
Don't worry, your title as the wannabe constitutional scholar is still fully intact. It has been a pure treat to see Ivy take you to school regarding US corporate law.
kalm wrote:Hey, you dragged the other thread in here...Baldy wrote:
Holy ****...bible verses, WWJD, wealth and power consolidation, wealth redistribution, welfare queens, unnecessary wars, etc. etc. etc. lots and lots of exposed nerves in that response. No need to get the vapors, klam or houndawg will accuse you of being a drama queen.
Don't worry, your title as the wannabe constitutional scholar is still fully intact. It has been a pure treat to see Ivy take you to school regarding US corporate law.
“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country, except when it comes to corporate financing of elections. I'm down with that."
- Eric Idle
Ivytalk wrote:kalm wrote:
Hey, you dragged the other thread in here...
“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country, except when it comes to corporate financing of elections. I'm down with that."
- Eric Idle
FIFY.
