If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boston.com)   Group will submit 20,000 signatures on petition to repeal First Amendment   (boston.com) divider line 119
    More: Ironic, 1st amendment, ballot questions, constitutional amendments, petitions  
•       •       •

4600 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jul 2012 at 11:52 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



119 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-24 02:07:29 PM  

Corvus: Do you believe the Citzens United ruling was based on "Corporate Personhood" Yes or No?


wow, there's something wrong with you. Look in the post you just quoted, numbnuts.
 
2012-07-24 02:08:15 PM  

skullkrusher: Corvus: That's idiotic as I pointed out there are better and easier methods for collective free speech. I pointed that out to you and you have ignored that point.

there might be better and easier methods but there is no reason to legally limit collective speech to those methods.

Corvus: are you saying Citizen Unites ruling was based on "corporate personhood"?

skullkrusher: That is different than the "corporations are people" argument behind CU. In that regard, they're referring to corporations being comprised OF people and people have the right to free speech individually as well as collectively. Legally speaking, CU is probably right. If people can speak freely and donating to campaigns is an offshoot of that freedom, why can they not do so collectively as a corporation or union? It's the implications that suck monkey butt.

IANAL so this is just my lay interpretation of it

I already said what my interpretation of the ruling was. Perhaps you should read the thread?


Seriously never farking mind. I know you like to play your game of saying something and then pretending that's actually not what you said then move to something else. Wash, rinse, repeat.

You refuse to ever to answer any question or make a stand on anything.
 
2012-07-24 02:09:36 PM  

skullkrusher: Don't bring other people into this. I never have this sort of issue with other people. So... it's you, not me.


Are you kidding? In the last week or two I have seen about 3 posts you doing this with other people. Do you really believe this?


Wow your delusional.
 
2012-07-24 02:11:05 PM  

skullkrusher: Corvus: Do you believe the Citzens United ruling was based on "Corporate Personhood" Yes or No?

wow, there's something wrong with you. Look in the post you just quoted, numbnuts.


And once again, we've hit the insult portion of the show.

pathetic.
 
2012-07-24 02:15:53 PM  

Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: Do you believe the Citzens United ruling was based on "Corporate Personhood" Yes or No?

wow, there's something wrong with you. Look in the post you just quoted, numbnuts.

And once again, we've hit the insult portion of the show.

pathetic.


ahh, I would love to see your reaction if you were able to step outside yourself and read threads you are involved in.
 
2012-07-24 02:17:09 PM  

Corvus: Wow your delusional.


My delusional is not that impressive, actually.

/i keeeeed
 
2012-07-24 02:19:01 PM  
"I will believe that corporations are people when Texas starts executing them."

--Rep Keith Ellison, D, MN (and sekrit mooslin)
 
2012-07-24 02:21:44 PM  

skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: At least, you seem to actually be following what I am saying for once.

yeah, you're semi-lucid today

No what you do, is you create an argument and when I or someone else shows the problem with that argument you just ignore the points being made and attack the person for making an argument outside of what you wish it to be.

no, what happens is you don't understand something and then dismiss the clarification as "backpedaling" or "moving the goalposts". Then you make shiat up and start arguing that and wonder why people aren't answering questions based on your manufactured argument.

Don't bring other people into this. I never have this sort of issue with other people. So... it's you, not me.


weknowmemes.com

skullkrusher
2012-07-11 11:30:15 PM


DirkValentine: Dwight_Yeast: DirkValentine: What say you now, Skullkrusher?

If you're lucky, he'll just duck out of the the thread. If you're not, he's about to turn and attack you, which is what he does when he's backed into a corner.

I'm used to his schtick. It's pathetic, really. He tries to claim so vociferously that Romney is on point then slapped down and now....b.b.b.b.Biden!

oh, my mistake, I thought you were manning up. See, stupid, Biden was being used as an example of a politician making a political speech and saying "end of quote". It is not uncommon. It only seems so to the uncommonly dim. Do you understand or is there further embarrassment you wish to subject yourself to?


Yep only me, no one else ever.

[You'll do a b-b-but that's different, even though there are tons of examples]
 
2012-07-24 02:24:13 PM  

Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: At least, you seem to actually be following what I am saying for once.

yeah, you're semi-lucid today

No what you do, is you create an argument and when I or someone else shows the problem with that argument you just ignore the points being made and attack the person for making an argument outside of what you wish it to be.

no, what happens is you don't understand something and then dismiss the clarification as "backpedaling" or "moving the goalposts". Then you make shiat up and start arguing that and wonder why people aren't answering questions based on your manufactured argument.

Don't bring other people into this. I never have this sort of issue with other people. So... it's you, not me.

[weknowmemes.com image 479x356]

skullkrusher
2012-07-11 11:30:15 PM

DirkValentine: Dwight_Yeast: DirkValentine: What say you now, Skullkrusher?

If you're lucky, he'll just duck out of the the thread. If you're not, he's about to turn and attack you, which is what he does when he's backed into a corner.

I'm used to his schtick. It's pathetic, really. He tries to claim so vociferously that Romney is on point then slapped down and now....b.b.b.b.Biden!

oh, my mistake, I thought you were manning up. See, stupid, Biden was being used as an example of a politician making a political speech and saying "end of quote". It is not uncommon. It only seems so to the uncommonly dim. Do you understand or is there further embarrassment you wish to subject yourself to?

Yep only me, no one else ever.

[You'll do a b-b-but that's different, even though there are tons of examples]


And by the way that was the VERY Boobies I FOUND doing a Google search of SkullKrusher on Fark. It wasn't very hard to find one of SK going off the deep end because someone thought differently then him.
 
2012-07-24 02:29:53 PM  
so, whens the wedding?

/you know who yous are!
 
2012-07-24 02:31:26 PM  

Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: At least, you seem to actually be following what I am saying for once.

yeah, you're semi-lucid today

No what you do, is you create an argument and when I or someone else shows the problem with that argument you just ignore the points being made and attack the person for making an argument outside of what you wish it to be.

no, what happens is you don't understand something and then dismiss the clarification as "backpedaling" or "moving the goalposts". Then you make shiat up and start arguing that and wonder why people aren't answering questions based on your manufactured argument.

Don't bring other people into this. I never have this sort of issue with other people. So... it's you, not me.

[weknowmemes.com image 479x356]

skullkrusher
2012-07-11 11:30:15 PM

DirkValentine: Dwight_Yeast: DirkValentine: What say you now, Skullkrusher?

If you're lucky, he'll just duck out of the the thread. If you're not, he's about to turn and attack you, which is what he does when he's backed into a corner.

I'm used to his schtick. It's pathetic, really. He tries to claim so vociferously that Romney is on point then slapped down and now....b.b.b.b.Biden!

oh, my mistake, I thought you were manning up. See, stupid, Biden was being used as an example of a politician making a political speech and saying "end of quote". It is not uncommon. It only seems so to the uncommonly dim. Do you understand or is there further embarrassment you wish to subject yourself to?

Yep only me, no one else ever.

[You'll do a b-b-but that's different, even though there are tons of examples]


"no, what happens is you don't understand something and then dismiss the clarification as "backpedaling" or "moving the goalposts". Then you make shiat up and start arguing that and wonder why people aren't answering questions based on your manufactured argument."


oh hehe, you want to pretend that means that there are never any other misunderstandings of misinterpretations with other people. That's cute.
 
2012-07-24 03:36:37 PM  

skullkrusher: "no, what happens is you don't understand something and then dismiss the clarification as "backpedaling" or "moving the goalposts". Then you make shiat up and start arguing that and wonder why people aren't answering questions based on your manufactured argument."


Sometimes I make a point which is not directly dealing with the point being made. It's to establish the theoretic basis of mine or the other persons position. You seem to lack the ability to understand that other people base the opinions on a founding of a consistent beliefs. So when I try abstract the argument your mind is too narrow to understand that is what I am doing. So you think I don't understand your argument or think I am making up a new argument, like you stated. When all I am actually doing is making a single point that I then plan to use as the basis for my real argument. However you refuse to answer, so we can never get beyond that to see what I am trying to accomplish. Just because someone is not directly discussing the point you are making doesn't mean he is not building a logical case against the argument you are making.

I am sorry if you are not used to dealing with people who can think more than one move ahead. I find many on the right are incapable of seeing beyond superficial elements of an argument, it's seems to me you are admitting you are one of those.

This is why, I feel it's overall pointless to discuss something with you because you are incapable of connecting the dots together to make a cohesive argument. You believe only valid arguments are one's that can be evaluated in one step. So when one makes a case, like I do, that is based on multiple arguments holistically you see the first point I make and can't see how it is related so you jump to the conclusion I don't understand your argument or am trying to make some other argument which is not the case at all.


You often attack me for not being clear, which I do admit sometimes I am not as clear as I should, but I think the bigger problem is your inability to understand complex ideas that go beyond the superficial arguments that FARK mostly comprises of.
 
2012-07-24 03:40:25 PM  

skullkrusher: "no, what happens is you don't understand something and then dismiss the clarification as "backpedaling" or "moving the goalposts". Then you make shiat up and start arguing that and wonder why people aren't answering questions based on your manufactured argument."


I know this use of quotation marks some how has a justification for you. Maybe it's one of your "jokes" that seem to be your rational for most of your interesting use of bad grammar but I don't really get it.

Or did you mean:

"no, what happens is you don't understand something and then dismiss the clarification as 'backpedaling' or 'moving the goalposts'. Then you make shiat up and start arguing that and wonder why people aren't answering questions based on your manufactured argument."

No sorry for that you, never make a mistake. I forget. It's always me.
 
2012-07-24 04:19:00 PM  
This thread went to shiat pretty fast...
 
2012-07-24 04:20:18 PM  

Kuroshin: Dr.Zom: "If corporations are people then why isn't Mitt Romney in prison for serial murder?" - Anonymous

He's the Ted Bundy of business.


If money is the root of all evil, why do churches beg for it?

/very clear the 2nd was not about hunting rights; it was NECESSARY for the people to insure their freedom; Adams suggested a revolution every 30 years
//eternal vigilance is the price of liberty
 
2012-07-24 05:16:28 PM  

Corvus: Corporation are entities that are created and regulated by congress.


Most are actually created by the states; relatively few have direct federal charters. So....

Corvus: There is no right to be able form a corporation and congress can regulate that entity that it has created.


...isn't quite accurate.
Contrariwise, it might be possible to restrict corporations that are involved in interstate commerce; perhaps by regulating corporations that contribute to any national campaign, or to campaigns in any state other than the one that they are chartered in.

Probably runs afoul on Citizens United, though.
 
2012-07-24 06:45:58 PM  
polentical.files.wordpress.com

I LOVE YOU SUBWAY!
 
2012-07-24 10:22:21 PM  
All people eventually die. Sometimes we suffer an unexpected illness or injury.
To the extent that corporations compete with people, people will always lose in the end.
To level the playing field, corporations should have a random anual chance of serious injury or death.
The older the corporation, the higher the chance of this happening.
A corporation is, at it heart, a special limited liability financial arrangement.
This arrangement is allowed by society in exchange for potential benefits not available in world that runs solely on private equity.
When a corporation fails its saving roll vs. death, it is liquidated and the assets distributed to society at large rather than soley to the shareholders.
 
2012-07-25 12:55:11 AM  

skullkrusher: it was a witty headline. You people are gonna give yourselves skin failure


I think we need an "ignorant" button just for comments like this one. lol

wtfdidijustread.jpg
 
Displayed 19 of 119 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report