Well, at least your insults are clear. Too bad that isn't true for the rest of what you say. All cir locution and prescription. You demand others show their work, but instead of making your own case, you usually copy and paste someone else's, load questions, pose false dilemmas or make lame appeals to authority, like a good Tory.
Lazy.
I guess you base everything you say on what other people say. It explains your mania for epigrams and also, incidentally, for self-quotation. You're lost in the epigonism of epigonism, and your vanity demands everyone pay you with the same coin.
Well, that.
It's a weird tack to take for a sports themed bulletin board. Beats me why you think it will be persuasive.
Last edited by Winehole23; 01-23-2010 at 08:37 AM.
I also notice that you have mostly ignored polite earnest questions ( from EVAY and DarkReign) and focused instead on "trolls" like me, whom you affect to disdain.
If only your polite interlocutors were so lucky.
Guess politeness doesn't mean as much to you as you say.
But you're not very much for answering others. You mostly demand people respond to your questions. It's the reciprocality thing again. You suck at it.
You duck and dodge, deflect, talk circles around your own point without really revealing it, and scold others for not being on the same page as you.
(Yawn)
How pedantic.
"Quit hitting us up for campaign cash."
This is a window-dressing campaign, probably hatched by CoC or Heritage or some other stink tank, to counter the negative reaction to the ruling.
Those very same corps have been/will be all over DC when legislation that affects them is in play.
"Trust Us! We corporations, "are not now and never have been", really aren't bad guys corrupting Congress to our benefits."GMAFB
How sad. Mad much? You really dislike to have your ignorance expose, don't you? Get your act together, kid. Read some books instead of parroting the nonsense you read in the ACM.
I'm the one talking in circles and resorting to cir locution? You, of all people, accusing someone else of that? LOL.
Talk something substantive. Here, let me help you: why do you disagree/agree with the majority opinion in CU? What's your interpretation of the Free Speech Clause in the 1st Amendment - does it protect speakers or speech, regardless of who produces it? Was the question of the personhood of the corporations relevant to the court decision? If so, why? Was the provision invalidated
I've already, one way or the other, answered all these questions, often more than once - if you want to, I can provide the links to the precise posts.
o ForumCop. I've answered EVAY's question. If he's not satisfied with the answer, he can certainly make a follow-up one. I dont' see any DarkReign question here, I remember answering a few of them recently in another threads. If I left something unanswered, please have the kindness of linking that post.I also notice that you have mostly ignored polite earnest questions ( from EVAY and DarkReign)
Not really. I admitted it totally unprompted. That's how much I hate having it exposed.
You characterize any reply not tailored to your specs or otherwise not agreeing with it as faulty -- thematic for you here. You claim to be interested in what other people say, but you if you hear anything that isn't an echo of you. Better a debtor than pay with a coin that does not bear your image, right?
Now, it would seem so. A few days ago, this was hardly clear.
Not that I know of.
But the personhood of corporations is hardly irrelevant to the more general discussion we were having, that you are still ignoring -- about the the corporate capture of the electoral process and politicians and the role of MONEY in the whole thing. Your attempt to reduce the whole controversy to technical views of free speech and turn this thread into a citation contest regarding SC opinions not only misses the point but obscures it. But that was probably the intention all along.
One needn't agree with the technicalities of the various cases overturned to be concerned about the result of the ruling. There is little doubt it amplifies the role and prominence of corporate money in elections.
That you continue to blow the free speech absolutists at the ACLU and show so little regard for actual Americans seeing their own influence and importance in their own republic diminished before their eyes, becomes you.
If you didn't pay attention in the first place and can't be bothered to reread the threads to see what you might have missed, don't ask me for help.
For someone who hands out so much homework, and twits others so much for their lack of reading, your inattention to the threads themselves is striking.
Where, where? you are always saying.
It's not my fault you lost your way in the thread.
But the Cato Ins ute said it was a win....
Terrific. I'm sure this will result in less corporate rent-seeking from this point on.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
