Can pinheads explain the contradiction? ...Probably not!

Ice Dancer said:
That's what he does. He introduces a straw man to conflate the argument. His other tactic is split an unimportant hair to distract when he is cornered...and last but not least he plays the intellectually dishonest card of claiming you were arguing something you were not.

He's a dishonest asshole :)
Click to expand...

Oh he's as dishonest as they come, I've been debating with him for years. He actually used to make some sense and be somewhat reasonable on things, but here lately, he's really slipped off the cliff into total and complete left-wing lunacy.

Lately, it seems he wants to use "State Interest" as a code word for "Stringy's interests" ...Can't have a law prohibiting Gay Marriage, because it's not in the "states interest" (aka: Stringy's interest) Can't let politicians donate to political campaigns because it's not in the "states interest" (Stringy's interest) Gotta let the Mosque company build their Trophy Mosque, because that IS in the "states interest" (Stringy's interest). It's really cute and clever, but has no practical bearing on reality.
 
Dixie said:
What the dog fuck are you even yammering about? The State has absolutely NO interest in EITHER case. This is about XYZ, Inc. who wants to donate to a politician or build a mosque. In one instance, the 1st Amendment protects them, in the other, it doesn't. I asked for an explanation, and you start in on some stupidity about "state interest" which doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with this.
Click to expand...

I am yammering about the case law that allows limits on contributions as speech for the purpose of protecting a compelling state interest. It is certainly relevant, even if it is over your head as to why.
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
Oh he's as dishonest as they come, I've been debating with him for years. He actually used to make some sense and be somewhat reasonable on things, but here lately, he's really slipped off the cliff into total and complete left-wing lunacy.

Lately, it seems he wants to use "State Interest" as a code word for "Stringy's interests" ...Can't have a law prohibiting Gay Marriage, because it's not in the "states interest" (aka: Stringy's interest) Can't let politicians donate to political campaigns because it's not in the "states interest" (Stringy's interest) Gotta let the Mosque company build their Trophy Mosque, because that IS in the "states interest" (Stringy's interest). It's really cute and clever, but has no practical bearing on reality.
Click to expand...

Dude, read a fucking supreme court ruling and do a little studying on Constitutional law. You are embarrassing yourself. These are well know constitutional tests and yet you pretend like I am making shit up off the top of my head.

Building a mosque is not in the state's interest, retard. There is no legitimate interest served by stopping the mosque.
 
RStringfield said:
I am yammering about the case law that allows limits contributions as speech for the purpose of protecting a compelling state interest. It is certainly relevant, even if it is over your head as to why.
Click to expand...

Not it's not, we're not even talking about "states interest" here, we are discussing constitutional rights and whether they apply to corporations or just to individuals, it has nothing to do with the state or their interests. The SCOTUS ruled that corporations have the same 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech, as individuals have, and struck down a major part of CFR in the process. Liberal pinheads had a cow over it, claiming the court had given corporations "human rights" .....fast forward to the mosque.... same 'corporate entity' is trying to build a mosque, and the same exact liberal pinheads are whining about their "constitutional right" under the very same amendment! In one case, the 1st Amendment applies, and can't even be questioned... we're called intolerant bigots and everything else.... not even an inkling of a thought that the 'corporation' has protection of the 1st Amendment.... but in the SCOTUS ruling, it was a completely different tune. I just wondered if anyone had some explanation, and they don't. You sure as fuck didn't explain anything with your idiocy about 'state interest' ...the state doesn't have a compelling interest in EITHER case!
 
RStringfield said:
Dude, read a fucking supreme court ruling and do a little studying on Constitutional law. You are embarrassing yourself. These are well know constitutional tests and yet you pretend like I am making shit up off the top of my head.

Building a mosque is not in the state's interest, retard. There is no legitimate interest served by stopping the mosque.
Click to expand...

I never said there was. Retard.

And I do know a good deal more about Constitutional law than you think, but I don't blame you for going to the "insult their intellect" well, you were floundering badly with your bullshit.
 
Dixie said:
I've been contemplating this for a few days now. We recently had a SCOTUS ruling, which allows corporations to make political contributions, under the 1st amendment protections of free speech. Pinheads screamed and moaned about this, as you will recall. They questioned the wisdom of bestowing "human rights" or more appropriately, individual constitutional rights, on corporate entities. They've argued up, down, and sideways, that this was never intended by the founding fathers, and is an affront to our democratic system.

Fast forward to the mosque issue, where they are now standing with a "corporate entity" (the people building the mosque) and claiming their 1st amendment rights are being violated. I don't understand this contradiction, I thought "corporations" weren't supposed to have the same rights as individuals?

Now I'm sure they will argue this group doesn't 'qualify' as a 'corporation' but the funding for this project is not being provided by an individual, and this is not an individual's project, it's a group or organization. Why is one such entity entitled to full constitutional rights, and another similar entity isn't?
Click to expand...

BLARG BLARG BLARG BLARG BLARG

BLARG BLARG BLAR?

BLARG BLARG BLARG BLARG BLARG BLARG BLARG! BLARG!

:cof1:
 
Stringy? I am reading over the Constitution again, trying to find the part where it designates our freedoms based solely on state interests... not finding that passage, can you give me some help?
 
Dixie said:
Waterhead, thank you for admitting you can't present an explanation either. I wasn't betting on you presenting one, but it was nice of you to weigh in anyway.
Click to expand...

Blargedy blarg blarg blarg! :palm:

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Blarg blarg blarg blarg blarg blarg blarg blarg, folks!
 
Dixie said:
Stringy? I am reading over the Constitution again, trying to find the part where it designates our freedoms based solely on state interests... not finding that passage, can you give me some help?
Click to expand...

He can't. He just makes up any shit he can think of and throws it on the wall.

The unifying idea behind his bullshit is perverting law to destroy the american people.
 
Last edited:
LMAO. Stringfield was just here for like an hour trying to reply to this.

I guess after all his typing he realized himself that he's a moron and left, without posting.

Funny.
 
Not it's not, we're not even talking about "states interest" here, we are discussing constitutional rights and whether they apply to corporations or just to individuals, it has nothing to do with the state or their interests.
Click to expand...

Are you confusing the general use of "state" again?


The SCOTUS ruled that corporations have the same 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech, as individuals have, and struck down a major part of CFR in the process. Liberal pinheads had a cow over it, claiming the court had given corporations "human rights" .....fast forward to the mosque.... same 'corporate entity' is trying to build a mosque, and the same exact liberal pinheads are whining about their "constitutional right" under the very same amendment! In one case, the 1st Amendment applies, and can't even be questioned... we're called intolerant bigots and everything else.... not even an inkling of a thought that the 'corporation' has protection of the 1st Amendment.... but in the SCOTUS ruling, it was a completely different tune. I just wondered if anyone had some explanation, and they don't. You sure as fuck didn't explain anything with your idiocy about 'state interest' ...the state doesn't have a compelling interest in EITHER case!
Click to expand...

I explained why limits on free speech contained within CFR have been permitted.

The left is wrong on corporate personhood. But, there is a reasonable debate on whether corporate entities should be able to make political speech based on several issues that are not relevant in this case.

The PRIMARY one overturned by the CU v FEC case was the Austin ruling concerning a state anti distortion interest. The Austin court found that distortion was caused by... “the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas.” 494 U. S., at 660; see id. , at 659 (citing MCFL, 479 U. S., at 257; NCPAC, 470 U. S., at 500–501).

Another claim of state interest is in protecting shareholders from supporting speech they do not intend to support. Again the reasoning is extremely flawed.

The left's reasoning IS flawed on CFR, but it has nothing to do with this case. This church is NOT being built by a for profit corporation. The capital is, presumably, being raised by an organization that is explicitly devoted to the advancement of religion.

So are you trying to justify state action here with reasoning you reject and that is not relevant to the case? If you are just using this case to attack the left's corporate personhood arguments then you are doing a crappy job of it.
 
RStringfield said:
Are you confusing the general use of "state" again?




I explained why limits on free speech contained within CFR have been permitted.

The left is wrong on corporate personhood. But, there is a reasonable debate on whether corporate entities should be able to make political speech based on several issues that are not relevant in this case.

The PRIMARY one overturned by the CU v FEC case was the Austin ruling concerning a state anti distortion interest. The Austin court found that distortion was caused by... “the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas.” 494 U. S., at 660; see id. , at 659 (citing MCFL, 479 U. S., at 257; NCPAC, 470 U. S., at 500–501).

Another claim of state interest is in protecting shareholders from supporting speech they do not intend to support. Again the reasoning is extremely flawed.

The left's reasoning IS flawed on CFR, but it has nothing to do with this case. This church is NOT being built by a for profit corporation. The capital is, presumably, being raised by an organization that is explicitly devoted to the advancement of religion.

So are you trying to justify state action here with reasoning you reject and that is not relevant to the case? If you are just using this case to attack the left's corporate personhood arguments then you are doing a crappy job of it.
Click to expand...

Corporations are not people. It's not a left right issue. People of no categorized political affiliations also can see corporations are not people. Why are you such a brainwashed fool aka internationalist fascist?
 
AssHatZombie said:
LMAO. Stringfield was just here for like an hour trying to reply to this.

I guess after all his typing he realized himself that he's a moron and left, without posting.

Funny.
Click to expand...

I leave open my posting windows as I get busy with some other task or in doing research. During the last post, I did a little work and was studying CU v FEC. I guess, it would be faster if I just pretended that supreme court decisions were based on whim, as the right does. But that speed would be at the cost of accuracy, something you do not value.
 
RStringfield said:
I leave open my posting windows as I get busy with some other task or in doing research. During the last post, I did a little work and was studying CU v FEC. I guess, it would be faster if I just pretended that supreme court decisions were based on whim, as the right does. But that speed would be at the cost of accuracy, something you do not value.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. You're too stupid to think of good things to write.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Corporations are not people. It's not a left right issue. People of no categorized political affiliations also can see corporations are not people. Why are you such a brainwashed fool aka internationalist fascist?
Click to expand...

And there it is... An opinion based on simple minded nonsense and no real consideration of the issue the supreme's dealt with.
 
RStringfield said:
Yes, knee jerk reaction is synonymous with great intellect.

Schooling you retards is not the primary focus of my life. You should thank me for wasting as much time on you as I do.
Click to expand...

the truth is not "knee jerk" reaction.

Corporations are not people. They shouldn't be treated as people legally, therefore.

I thank you for coming here so I can unmask your treachery and fascism in the light of day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top