Page 29 of 35 FirstFirst ...
19
27
28
29
30
31
... LastLast
  1. #561
    Merely a Setback Connal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    29,607
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    There are plenty of people I disagree with who don't lie.

    There are a few who do, unrepentantly.

    I've even asked that they directly quote me saying the things they claim, and without exception, none of them have ever been able to back up their bullshit.

    But here, you yourself are lying about my views, making up your own set of horseshit that has nothing to do with anything I have ever said.

    I really have to wonder what you people think you're going to gain.
    Are you psychic and can tell people's intentions?

    I'm not lying about your views... that is what you look like to me, sitting on the other side of the screen and reading your posts. The impression I get is you think anyone that does not agree with you is lying.
    Vocatus atque non vocatus, deus aderit.

  2. #562
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    60,610
    Quote Originally Posted by Connal View Post
    Are you psychic and can tell people's intentions?
    I didn't make any such argument or claim. Why do you make this shit up?

    I'm not lying about your views... that is what you look like to me, sitting on the other side of the screen and reading your posts. The impression I get is you think anyone that does not agree with you is lying.
    Then your impression is wrong, and could be corrected by bothering to look at my posting history, which you won't do, because you're not interested in whether your slander is accurate or not. It isn't about truth, to you, at all, it's just about making shit up to make me look bad.

    Regardless, I'm not letting you drag me into defending myself from the bullshit people like yourself make up, just to bait me into an angry response and/or derail the thread. You can't back any of this shit up, and you know it. I won't respond to any further bait of this sort here.
    Last edited by Endus; 2019-04-26 at 08:44 PM.

  3. #563
    Merely a Setback Connal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    29,607
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    I didn't make any such argument or claim. Why do you make this shit up?
    That is a question, not something I "made up" you seem to say "Stop Lying" or "You are lying" or "Stop fucking lying" a lot. Which makes me think you have some kind of either psychological tick, or you legitimately think people are lying to you when they don't agree with some issue you bring up, or you have a 6th sense where you can tell if people are lying to you... so which one is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Then your impression is wrong, and could be corrected by bothering to look at my posting history, which you won't do, because you're not interested in whether your slander is accurate or not. It isn't about truth, to you, at all, it's just about making shit up to make me look bad.
    My impression could be wrong, but I have seen enough of your posts to think it is not all that wrong....

    To tell the truth I do not view you highly enough anymore to read your past posts... there are a few people I will do that with, just to see what they think; with you?

    Maybe on Climate Change, and that's about it.

    Though it would be neat to create a Lisa AI Bot by scanning your posts, and see if it thinks people are lying to it as well...

    Person: Hi
    Endus Bot: Hi, what's your fucking name?
    Person: Bob
    Endus Bot: Stop lying!

    Oh the fun...
    Vocatus atque non vocatus, deus aderit.

  4. #564
    The Insane Orange Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    001100010010011110100001101101110011
    Posts
    18,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Connal View Post
    Stripping personhood from corporations should be goal number 1.
    This wouldn't fix anything.
    I have a fan. Seems he was permabanned.

  5. #565
    Merely a Setback Connal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    29,607
    Quote Originally Posted by Orange Joe View Post
    This wouldn't fix anything.
    Sure it would... for one thing it takes a lot of money out of politics. Though at this point it would never happen, so it's just a dream.
    Vocatus atque non vocatus, deus aderit.

  6. #566
    The Insane Orange Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    001100010010011110100001101101110011
    Posts
    18,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Connal View Post
    Sure it would... for one thing it takes a lot of money out of politics. Though at this point it would never happen, so it's just a dream.
    How does it take money out? You would have to make a law stopping it.
    I have a fan. Seems he was permabanned.

  7. #567
    Merely a Setback Connal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    29,607
    Quote Originally Posted by Orange Joe View Post
    How does it take money out? You would have to make a law stopping it.
    Because the house of cards that have granted all the "speech" corporations have now, came thanks to Corporate personhood:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

    In the United States, legal milestones in this debate include:

    Tillman Act of 1907, banned corporate political contributions to national campaigns.

    Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, campaign financing legislation.

    1974 Amendments to Federal Election Campaign Act provided for first comprehensive system of regulation, including limitations on the size of contributions and expenditures and prohibitions on certain entities from contributing or spending, disclosure, creation of the Federal Election Commission as a regulatory agency, and government funding of presidential campaigns.

    Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) upheld limits on campaign contributions, but held that spending money to influence elections is protected speech by the First Amendment.

    First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) upheld the rights of corporations to spend money in non-candidate elections (i.e. ballot initiatives and referendums).

    Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) upheld the right of the state of Michigan to prohibit corporations from using money from their corporate treasuries to support or oppose candidates in elections, noting: "[c]orporate wealth can unfairly influence elections."

    Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (McCain–Feingold), banned corporate funding of issue advocacy ads which mentioned candidates close to an election.

    McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003), substantially upheld McCain–Feingold.

    Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007) weakened McCain–Feingold, but upheld core of McConnell.

    Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 844 (2010) the Supreme Court of the United States held that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment, overruling Austin (1990) and partly overruling McConnell (2003).

    Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General of Montana (2012). U.S. Supreme Court summary reversal of a decision by the Montana Supreme Court holding that Citizens United did not preclude a Montana state law prohibiting corporate spending in elections.


    You take that out, the house collapses.
    Vocatus atque non vocatus, deus aderit.

  8. #568
    The Insane Orange Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    001100010010011110100001101101110011
    Posts
    18,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Connal View Post
    snip.
    So the owner donates the money personally. Money still gets donated. Nothing really changed.
    I have a fan. Seems he was permabanned.

  9. #569
    Quote Originally Posted by Orange Joe View Post
    This wouldn't fix anything.
    It would be a good first step but only a first step. The system we currently have is fundamentally corrupted to its core. Controlling the means of production is a necessary concession for society to survive.

    Controlling access to knowledge and the ability to express ones ideas? I can't fathom a worst kind of poison for a society.

  10. #570
    Merely a Setback Connal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    29,607
    Quote Originally Posted by Orange Joe View Post
    So the owner donates the money personally. Money still gets donated. Nothing really changed.
    Personal contributions are capped still, and if they go around that, they go to jail.
    Vocatus atque non vocatus, deus aderit.

  11. #571
    Quote Originally Posted by Has lost its way View Post
    How did we get to where we are now? A world were there is a strong push towards real-id systems where it is getting harder and harder to just have fun.

    You want to banter in a video game? The company will stalk you on twitter and facebook and ban you like overwatch.
    You want to share a controversial opinion? In Germany they arrest you.
    You want to jerk off? Need a license for that in the UK.
    You commit "hate speech" a nebulous term no two people can agree on what exactly it means? Your bank cuts you off from your accounts...

    Just what the hell happened? Is this just a case of thousand cuts over a long period of time that no one really noticed? Is there anyway to reverse this trend especially since it seems major finical institutions seem to pull services from sights that allow things they find offensive.

    How did we get here and more importantly is there anyway to return the internet to its glory days?
    It's almost like the internet is a real place, like any other, where your actions have consequences, and you can be held accountable for them.

    The real question is, what made people think the internet was any different to begin with?

  12. #572
    The Insane Orange Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    001100010010011110100001101101110011
    Posts
    18,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Connal View Post
    Personal contributions are capped still, and if they go around that, they go to jail.
    https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-...bution-limits/

    From what I'm seeing the difference is negligible.
    I have a fan. Seems he was permabanned.

  13. #573
    Merely a Setback Connal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    29,607
    Quote Originally Posted by Orange Joe View Post
    https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-...bution-limits/

    From what I'm seeing the difference is negligible.
    "PAC” here refers to a committee that makes contributions to other federal political committees. Independent-expenditure-only political committees (sometimes called “Super PACs”) may accept unlimited contributions, including from corporations and labor organizations.

    A single individual will have less money than an entire corporation. And funneling money (through a corporation) would be illegal.
    Vocatus atque non vocatus, deus aderit.

  14. #574
    Quote Originally Posted by SirKickBan View Post
    It's almost like the internet is a real place, like any other, where your actions have consequences, and you can be held accountable for them.

    The real question is, what made people think the internet was any different to begin with?
    Well it wasn't a real place to start...

  15. #575
    Quote Originally Posted by Orange Joe View Post
    This wouldn't fix anything.
    It would be a big step to getting them out of DC.

    Ever since the democratic systems permitted their various courts to give corporations the status of persons, the individual as citizen has been on the defensive. How could it be otherwise? If you are a person before the law and Exxon or Ford is also a person, it is clear that the concept of democratic legitimacy lying with the individual has been mortally wounded.
    ~John Ralston Saul

  16. #576
    Have real friends, online friends sometimes sucks...

  17. #577
    The Insane Orange Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    001100010010011110100001101101110011
    Posts
    18,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Connal View Post
    "PAC” here refers to a committee that makes contributions to other federal political committees. Independent-expenditure-only political committees (sometimes called “Super PACs”) may accept unlimited contributions, including from corporations and labor organizations.

    A single individual will have less money than an entire corporation. And funneling money (through a corporation) would be illegal.
    What stops in individual from donating through a PAC? How many PAC's can a person donate too?


    As shown in the link I gave, PAC's are capped on how much they can give.



    Mind you. I have no issues with a campaign finance overhaul. I personally think each candidate should receive an equal amount of funding for their campaign.
    I have a fan. Seems he was permabanned.

  18. #578
    Quote Originally Posted by Orange Joe View Post
    What stops in individual from donating through a PAC? How many PAC's can a person donate too?

    As shown in the link I gave, PAC's are capped on how much they can give.
    And PACS are typically organized by industry.

    Who are writing laws?

    Copy, paste, legislate
    When legislators propose new laws, they don’t always write the bills themselves. Corporations, interest groups or their lobbyists often write fill-in-the-blank documents then shop them to state lawmakers.

  19. #579
    Merely a Setback Connal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    29,607
    Quote Originally Posted by Orange Joe View Post
    What stops in individual from donating through a PAC? How many PAC's can a person donate too?


    As shown in the link I gave, PAC's are capped on how much they can give.



    Mind you. I have no issues with a campaign finance overhaul. I personally think each candidate should receive an equal amount of funding for their campaign.
    I am saying that if say, the Koch Brothers give money to some PAC, they only give so much from their personal coffers. And even then people jump on them for buying politicians, etc...

    Corporations have way more money, and can now give unlimited amounts. But corporate personhood also limits liability for say suing the CEO, or members of the board for poisoning water, the air, etc, etc...

    The left used to be very strongly against it for many reasons, those two being the biggest.
    Vocatus atque non vocatus, deus aderit.

  20. #580
    Quote Originally Posted by Has lost its way View Post
    Well it wasn't a real place to start...
    If you say something to someone on the internet, how is it any different from any other form of communication?

    If someone threatens to kill you after a game of CoD, or someone threatens to kill you after a game of paintball, what difference is there asside from the distance between you two?

    If someone decides to start shouting propaganda into a megaphone, or into a youtube video, is there really a difference?

    The internet is as real as a telephone call, letter, speech, or conversation, and just because those things aren't tangible objects doesn't mean they aren't real.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •