In which case (assuming for the example that one person knew) than that person would be the one to sue, not the corporation.

But he wasn't speaking in his personal capacity, but as a representative of the corporation, in furtherance of corporate aims and business. Why would you allow the corporation to get a one-way option on his representations -- keeping all the money if the representations can't be proven fraudulent, keeping all the money if they can be?

It's not a first principles point, but people would never serve as managers of corporations under those conditions either.

You're counting your inability to use words in a way intelligible to others as the first, right?

No, Sam's outright stating that an 1830s slave in Alabama had no rights violated is the first.

Actually third, the second would be Andy outright stating that people who disagree with him should be killed.

It's not a first principles point, but people would never serve as managers of corporations under those conditions, either.

People still join the army after the Nuremberg trials made pretty clear how command responsibility would be considered after wars.

So what do we have on the last couple of pages, a dozen liberals against Dan on this free speech issue, with a lone post from Kurt adding the "balance"? I wonder if Robinred is recording the breakdown of the factions here, or if people are still pretending that the liberal circle jerk on BBTF is just a figment of Ron Jeremy's imagination.

Perhaps you should have done a similar count on that thread where I was complaining about Earthlink's customer service.

-----------------------------------------------

It's like the Election Day 2008 thread, in which Andy tallied McCain vs. Obama votes and at the point it reached Obama 20, McCain 0, Andy used the vote of Mike Emeigh's wife's vote as evidence of the site's balance, despite it only making it 20-1, Mike Emeigh's wife never posting on BTF, and Mike himself not being any kind of significant participant in a political thread ever.

For the record, that thread contained no such comment by me, and no such tally. Not that this will stop Dan or Ray from repeating it.

-----------------------------------------------

Did Andy also retract the statement that went along with this that people against Obamacare should be killed? If so, I missed it.

Why does he need to? I mean, I wish he would, and I criticized him when he made the statement. But the 2MPH car hypothetical doesn't show that he's wrong, just that he draws the line at the point where he draws the line. He didn't say that no one should ever die a preventable death ever, and he's certainly not a "murderer", even by his own rhetorical standard, just because he opposes 2MPH cars.

Look, I don't mind being slammed for what I wrote, but at least get it right. I did NOT say that anyone opposing Obamacare was "a murderer" or that they "should be shot". I was reacting to one specific comment made by one specific person, who said that anyone who couldn't either afford health insurance or get someone to pay for it voluntarily, should not get any such care---an attitude which effectively says that the person should simply die in the street.

758. The Good Face Posted: July 05, 2012 at 04:33 PM (#4173864)
I believe that people who can't afford medical care and can't find anybody willing to volunteer to provide it or pay for it should go without.

Perhaps Good Face didn't really mean that. Perhaps it was merely hyperbole. Perhaps he assumes that Jesus would wave a wand and cure the man, thus rendering moot the need for any government aid. If that's the case, I haven't seen any rentraction on his part for that statement. If he were to retract it, then I'd retract my statement.

But since I'm a congenital moderate, I'll amend my thought to say that if someone robbed and shot Good Face and left him bleeding to death on the street, if he left his insurance card at home and the thief had stolen his wallet and cell phone, then we should let his own previous statement mandate society's response. That makes me as much of a humanitarian as he is.

And of course what this has to do with requiring cars to go 2MPH is something that exists only in Dan's and Ray's feverish imaginations. A six year old could think of better parallels than that.

-----------------------------------------------

This is one of the strangest arguments to ever appear on BBTF.

Even this doesn't trump the great Customer Service War.

Or Ray's crusade against copying movies onto DVDs from a network that does nothing to prevent such copying, allows open forum discussions of such copying under the vigilant eye of its management team, and has yet to shut down a single post on that subject.

No, Sam's outright stating that an 1830s slave in Alabama had no rights violated is the first.

Actually third, the second would be Andy outright stating that people who disagree with him should be killed.

If only Sam and Andy incorporated, they'd be fine and clear.

If only Sam and Andy incorporated, they'd be fine and clear.

I'm still free to dislike Doofus, Inc.

I damn well know what a corporation is

statements like this one belies that:

Yes, in this respect, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were fascists.

????

So some founding fathers thinking that a specific business form which automatically confers limited liability should only be formed for a specific purpose and be dissolved when that purpose was achieved makes them facists?

I thought taht you were insisting on redefining corporation or conflating it with something else, but now, I really don't think you actually know what a corporation IS, you think you do, but you don't.
Corporations were created to allow groups of people or entities to from a separate entity WHILE shielding those shareholders from liability.

Groups of people have always joined up to engage in collective endeavors.
Microsoft existed before it was a corporation, but it didn't exist as a corporation it existed as a partnership or joint endeavor between Bill Gates and Paul Allen (and maybe 1 or 2 others, I forget). Gates and Allen didn't have to incorporate, they could have:

1: Remained as a partnership, they could add other owners (partners), they could even contract as Microsoft, but each owner would be liable for all of Microsoft's debts (they could put a release of liability into contracts they entered into- but that would be terrifically unwieldy and impracticable)

2: Formed a limited partnership, two types of partners, limited and general- limited partners would have limited liability (and limited voting and other rights), the general partner(s) among other tings, would be liable for Microsoft's debts if Microsoft couldn't pay

3: Formed an LLC, similar to a Corporation, but would limit how big MS could get, who or what could invest

4: Formed Microsoft as a Joint Venture (the law on joint ventures is spotty, but generally today a "joint Venture" serves the function that Corporations did 200+ years ago- limited purpose, automatic dissolution, etc).

5: Formed a corporation


What a corporation does is:

A: Gives owners limited liability, the Corporation has all rights to sue and be sued- you can't sue Bill Gates personally if his software crashes your computer, he, personally, can't sue you for pirating Microsoft's products
B: Allows anyone or thing to invest and become an owner
C: Has a ready built mechanism/structure/framework for internal governance


If the "owners" of Citizens United had banded to together to produce and air their little anti-Hilary film without forming a "Corporation" to do so, then yes the Government had no right to stop them, the 1st amendment would bar government action imho.

The "owners" of Citizens United could have banded together and formed any number of entities NOT governed by that law, and produced and aired their little anti-Hilary film... but no, they specifically formed a type of entity the law barred from doing so.

I'm still free to dislike Doofus, Inc.

So long as you didn't voice that opinion... or if you did - only anonymously.

If the "owners" of Citizens United had banded to together to produce and air their little anti-Hilary film without forming a "Corporation" to do so, then yes the Government had no right to stop them, the 1st amendment would bar government action imho.

The "owners" of Citizens United could have banded together and formed any number of entities NOT governed by that law, and produced and aired their little anti-Hilary film... but no, they specifically formed a type of entity the law barred from doing so.

Except for the fact that there are benefits to having a corporation that the government deprives from non-corporations that should naturally have those right - it's more than limited liability.

Progressivism suddenly being concerned about consequences when a baseball writer turns out to be libertarian is a curious place to plant the flag of order.

Yes, Dan, that's it. No one ever cared about the consequences of public policy until you started ranting about your first principles in this thread.

So long as you didn't voice that opinion... or if you did - only anonymously.

It's kind of amusing that one of the few people to advocate for the right to anonymous free speech is one of the few here not exercising free speech anonymously.

Yes, Dan, that's it. No one ever cared about the consequences of public policy until you started ranting about your first principles in this thread.

Considering you are apparently in favor of suppressing free speech and having the government censor speech about government elections, then at least in your case, I have a pretty good indication that you haven't displayed much care for the consequences of public policy.

I said progressives, not no one. Progressives aren't the entirety of posters in this thread or even the great majori...never mind, strike this point.

One great thing about no longer having to administrate political threads is that I get to fully participate in these political threads. As I intend to in the future. If that results in fewer political threads or, god forbidding, zero political threads, well, I guess that's the market deciding.

Except for the fact that there are benefits to having a corporation that the government deprives from non-corporations

name them, I'm serious.

I have no problem with government enforcing contracts. Liability would simply be subject to the contractual arrangement concerning liability rather than what the government declares liability to be.

This makes no sense. Are you saying your non-recognized corporation would negotiate limited liability individually with every buyer, supplier, contractor and creditor? And you would negotiate the rights and responsibilities of each stockholder separately? That would be horribly inefficient.

And if I were an investor, and I wanted to invest with five different corporations, my rights and obligations could (and in practice would) be different with regard for each one, depending on the exact wording of the contract that I signed? That would be an unworkable system. Why would I invest in your corporation without the security of a solid legal framework that I was already familiar with? I would be at risk of misconstruing or misreading some fine print somewhere that could put me at a considerable disadvantage.

The situation you describe is that which existed in Britain before the passage of the Joint Stock Companies Act of 1844. Government permission was required to start a corporation, so many businesses operated as unincorporated associations. But that meant that if I had a legal dispute with the association, you would have to carry it out in the joint names of each of your possibly thousands of shareholders. Each would be individually liable to subpoena and deposition (having a single individual represent the collective required an Act of Parliament). It was a nightmare.

I said progressives, not not one.

I'll concede this point and restate:

Yes, Dan, that's it. No progressives ever cared about the consequences of public policy until you started ranting about your first principles in this thread.

You're right, that makes all the difference.

One great thing about no longer having to administrate political threads is that I get to fully participate in these political threads. As I intend to in the future. If that results in fewer political threads or, god forbidding, zero political threads, well, I guess that's the market deciding.

Well, as I did with Andy, I'll quote Major Calloway here - "That'll be a fine boast to make."

But just to be clear - you intend to be an obnoxious ass in the hope that fewer people will want to participate? I just want to be absolutely clear on this point, so that I can call you an obnoxious ass and have a factual basis for it.

It's kind of amusing that one of the few people to advocate for the right to anonymous free speech is one of the few here not exercising free speech anonymously.

Maybe that means it's not or not and shouldn't be a right...

It's kind of amusing that one of the few people to advocate for the right to anonymous free speech is one of the few here not exercising free speech anonymously.

I'm about the least anonymous person who's ever posted here, but if I had a billion bucks to saturate every swing state with 24/7 anti-Romney attack ads, I'd scarcely claim that nobody had a right to know where that money was coming from, or pretend that this was a "free speech" issue.

name them

Off top of my head, flexibility of exercising delegated rights (directing officer, etc)O, easy survival of company upon death of shareholder, additional privacy that non-corporations don't receive, numerous tax advantages (rental, depreciation, etc).

Are you saying your non-recognized corporation would negotiate limited liability individually with every buyer, supplier, contractor and creditor? And you would negotiate the rights and responsibilities of each stockholder separately? That would be horribly inefficient.

At first possibly, but over time, these would no doubt be standardized for use, with most contracts not varying much in liability granted.

Likely, nearly every single service agreement you've signed lays out liability. It's not that difficult.

I'm about the least anonymous person who's ever posted here...

FWIW, all I know about your real identity is that other people call you Andy, and for some reason I picture you as Woody from Toy Story (i.e., the toys' owner was named Andy).

Off top of my head, flexibility of exercising delegated rights (directing officer, etc)O, easy survival of company upon death of shareholder, additional privacy that non-corporations don't receive, numerous tax advantages (rental, depreciation, etc).

None of which exist without the force of law to back them up. Which gets us right back to square one: that corporations can only exist because governments say so.

FWIW, all I know about your real identity is that other people call you Andy,

One click on my handle can cure that , and there's not a single invented fact on the page.

They would also exist if a corporation could forcibly extract it from you, either via standing army/security force. Or maybe the corporation sets up its own court and laws that you agreed to, and if they think you're in violation of, they can arrest you and put you to trial. But that would blur the line between corporation/government.

Off top of my head, flexibility of exercising delegated rights (directing officer, etc)O, easy survival of company upon death of shareholder, additional privacy that non-corporations don't receive, numerous tax advantages (rental, depreciation, etc).

those are not "denied" to non-corporations
try again

One click on my handle can cure that , and there's not a single invented fact on the page.

Yeah, well, you're still a damn wooden puppet to me. Own it!

those are not "denied" to non-corporations

Sure they are, the government gives special privileges to favored parties, thanks to its power.

FWIW, all I know about your real identity is that other people call you Andy

and his last name starts with an M and he used to own a bookstore...

For obvious reasons I have not and I'm not going to criticize anyone for being anonymous, but Andy is not an anonymous poster in the sense that, Well I am.

So Dan, as long as your posting, any ZiPS updates coming?

So Dan, as long as your posting, any ZiPS updates coming?


I'll email you. I keep our crazy political threads separate from "all the rest" - what happens in political threads, stays in political threads. Some people, most notably Sam, are absolutely delightful when not arguing politics.

Likely, nearly every single service agreement you've signed lays out liability. It's not that difficult.

But all of those agreements are predicated on the existence of legal rules and norms set up by government. They are piggybacking on existing law. And they can be overridden by law. Many service agreements contain provisions that are completely unenforceable.

But if it's so easy, why was the Joint Stock Company Act needed?

what happens in political threads, stays in political threads. Some people, most notably Sam, are absolutely delightful when not arguing politics.

The best thing about this site is that even the worst political discussion can be considered the Neifi Perez of the site - bad when compared to those right next to it, but far better than the average of the general population.

But all of those agreements are predicated on the existence of legal rules and norms set up by government. They are piggybacking on existing law. And they can be overridden by law. Many service agreements contain provisions that are completely unenforceable.


Again, I don't mind government arbitrating between two parties, what I mind is government deciding on all the rules. I'm a minarchist, not an anarchist.

For obvious reasons I have not and I'm not going to criticize anyone for being anonymous

I'm not either, and now that I mention it, I think the "anonymous free speech" argument is one of the weakest in favor of CFR.

The best thing about this site is that even the worst political discussion can be considered the Neifi Perez of the site - bad when compared to those right next to it, but far better than the average of the general population.

Not even Sam (or me) would even be more obnoxious than average on a political site.

Again, I don't mind government arbitrating between two parties, what I mind is government deciding on all the rules. I'm a minarchist, not an anarchist.

DRINK!

(How exactly would a government administrate without having decided to some degree aforethought "all the rules.?" Just spin the bottle and kiss whomever it points to?) Wait, no, that would be rules.

Some people, most notably Sam, are absolutely delightful when not arguing politics.

I'm always delightful, Dan. The only difference is that it's your ox being gored and that pisses you off.

#1835 Calvinball as a form of government. First one to speak gets to make the rules -- as long as they've never been used before.

I'm always delightful, Dan. The only difference is that it's your ox being gored and that pisses you off.

You certainly say "pissed off" and "pissed on" quite a lot. Urine's not that interesting.

You certainly say "pissed off" and "pissed on" quite a lot. Urine's not that interesting.

There's a group of people with a certain fetish that disagree with you.

There's a group of people with a certain fetish that disagree with you.

To each his/her own. At least its sterile, unlike the services that a certain Rust Belt city's carpet-cleaning service advertises...

Look, I don't mind being slammed for what I wrote, but at least get it right. I did NOT say that anyone opposing Obamacare was "a murderer" or that they "should be shot". I was reacting to one specific comment made by one specific person, who said that anyone who couldn't either afford health insurance or get someone to pay for it voluntarily, should not get any such care---an attitude which effectively says that the person should simply die in the street.

This is supposed to be a defense of your 100% serious position that someone should be shot for saying what his position is?

Or Ray's crusade against copying movies onto DVDs from a network that does nothing to prevent such copying, allows open forum discussions of such copying under the vigilant eye of its management team, and has yet to shut down a single post on that subject.

? My "crusade" was against the fact that you kept insisting that what you were doing was not copyright infringement, when it damned well was. You'll note that once you agreed that you were wrong on this point, I dropped the subject completely, and never brought it up again.

You certainly say "pissed off" and "pissed on" quite a lot. Urine's not that interesting.

Interesting perhaps not, but it is very, very hilarious.

This is supposed to be a defense of your 100% serious position that someone should be shot for saying what his position is?

It's pretty entertaining when your defense is that you didn't mean to call for the murder of everyone, just one person.

It wouldn't have gotten him off, but I'd have been highly entertained if O.J. Simpson's legal strategy was to admit to the murder, but stress that he only stabbed two people that one time and the prosecution is unfairly ignoring his other 45, non-murdering years.

It wouldn't have gotten him off, but I'd have been highly entertained if O.J. Simpson's legal strategy was to admit to the murder, but stress that he only stabbed two people that one time and the prosecution is unfairly ignoring his other 45, non-murdering years.

And a more true to life variation of the defense was when Jerry Sandusky opined in an interview that there were plenty of children he didn't rape.

There's a group of people with a certain fetish that disagree with you.

People who read the plain language of the first amendment?

Urine's not that interesting.

Sam is actually R. Kelly.

Again, I don't mind government arbitrating between two parties, what I mind is government deciding on all the rules. I'm a minarchist, not an anarchist.

If you're going to keep playing the "corporations are just groups of people" card and disregarding all definitions of "corporation" that don't do what you want them to do, then you should at least recognize that democratic governments are also groups of people, and they willed the corporation into existence for a specific purpose. These things did not come down on stone tablets-- they were invented for a particular purpose. Your "since the dawn of man, people have been forming corporations" is not a description of anything that looks like en empirically-verifiable history. It's taking a recently-invented concept and projecting it back on the whole of human history to suit your own ideological purposes. That's what a political anthropology does-- it derives its weight from its claim to transcendence, and bends all of human nature to serve its agenda.

If you back off your claim to transcendence, you get mired down in all sorts of ugliness that's inconvenient for your position-- at some point, the people who gave the corporation rights recognized a social utility in doing so. Without that utility, there's no reason to agree to grant it standing. Again, you're starting from a particular desired outcome (a society amenable to free-market capitalism), and then working backwards, but pretending that you're working from first principles and building up from there. But that's not how it happened; human interests came first, and then they invented an ideology to justify them (Habermas's Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere explains this transition nicely).

Some people, most notably Sam, are absolutely delightful when not arguing politics.

WTF? Sam is sometimes amusing when discussing politics, otoh when discussing baseball he can be one nasty SOB

#1841 I know I'll regret commenting on this but ...

a) I'd characterize Andy's post in question as a death wish as opposed to a death threat. Not that it makes what he said acceptable. But if he'd said something like "Good Face is a waste of skin" we (probably) wouldn't be having this conversation. Or if we did, it'd be substantially different.

b) I'm somewhat surprised it didn't get him time in the penalty box. The only thing I can think of is that this particular comment is at odds with his extensive posting history.

Sam is actually R. Kelly.

She wasn't 13! She was a corporation! We were contracting!!

WTF? Sam is sometimes amusing when discussing politics, otoh when discussing baseball he can be one nasty SOB

To be fair, there are very few topics where I can't be one nasty SOB.

I'm somewhat surprised it didn't get him time in the penalty box.

Jim's in charge of this now, so I'm free to flame war to my heart's content without that conflict of interest. And since I'm strongly against there being political threads at all (until people have to opt-in), I'm certainly not going to do anything that stands in the way of presenting what a political thread is, in all its uncensored glory.

a) I'd characterize Andy's post in question as a death wish as opposed to a death threat.

That's fair. I'd characterize it either as a death wish or as something in between. Andy wasn't threatening to mete out the justice himself, and he wasn't advocating anyone else do it, but if Andy saw someone go up to GF and shoot him for saying what he said, Andy would pat the executioner on the back and say well done, that was well deserved, he shouldn't have said that.

Andy wasn't threatening to mete out the justice himself, and he wasn't advocating anyone else do it, but if Andy saw someone go up to GF and shoot him for saying what he said, Andy would pat the executioner on the back and say well done, that was well deserved, he shouldn't have said that.

In other words, Andy's kind of a dilettante murderer, in tune with the whole "killing thing" as long as he doesn't really have to handle the heavy lifting.

It's pretty entertaining when your defense is that you didn't mean to call for the murder of everyone, just one person.

I'm reminded of this (WARNING: NSFW), particularly the portion from 1:00-1:20.

And since I'm strongly against there being political threads at all (until people have to opt-in), I'm certainly not going to do anything that stands in the way of presenting what a political thread is, in all its uncensored glory.

Puhleese, this is nothing like other political threads, a real political thread would see someone wishing death on another poster for that poster's healthcare opinion, serious calls for impeachment (of Roberts/Obama/Scalia etc etc), accusations of inbreeding, sex with animals, comparisons to [in]famous Nazis like the People's Court Judge Roland whatisname, accusations of illiteracy, plaigerism, and of simply making stuff up...

oh wait...

She wasn't 13! She was a corporation! We were contracting!!

Both at the time, and in her case, 9 months later.

1841. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 10, 2012 at 04:38 PM (#4178854)

Look, I don't mind being slammed for what I wrote, but at least get it right. I did NOT say that anyone opposing Obamacare was "a murderer" or that they "should be shot". I was reacting to one specific comment made by one specific person, who said that anyone who couldn't either afford health insurance or get someone to pay for it voluntarily, should not get any such care---an attitude which effectively says that the person should simply die in the street.


This is supposed to be a defense of your 100% serious position that someone should be shot for saying what his position is?

Or Ray's crusade against copying movies onto DVDs from a network that does nothing to prevent such copying, allows open forum discussions of such copying under the vigilant eye of its management team, and has yet to shut down a single post on that subject.

My "crusade" was against the fact that you kept insisting that what you were doing was not copyright infringement, when it damned well was. You'll note that once you agreed that you were wrong on this point, I dropped the subject completely, and never brought it up again.

1843. Dan Szymborski Posted: July 10, 2012 at 04:46 PM (#4178859)

This is supposed to be a defense of your 100% serious position that someone should be shot for saying what his position is?

It's pretty entertaining when your defense is that you didn't mean to call for the murder of everyone, just one person.

It wouldn't have gotten him off, but I'd have been highly entertained if O.J. Simpson's legal strategy was to admit to the murder, but stress that he only stabbed two people that one time and the prosecution is unfairly ignoring his other 45, non-murdering years.

1844. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 10, 2012 at 04:51 PM (#4178862)
It wouldn't have gotten him off, but I'd have been highly entertained if O.J. Simpson's legal strategy was to admit to the murder, but stress that he only stabbed two people that one time and the prosecution is unfairly ignoring his other 45, non-murdering years.

And a more true to life variation of the defense was when Jerry Sandusky opined in an interview that there were plenty of children he didn't rape.

1853. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 10, 2012 at 05:09 PM (#4178881)
a) I'd characterize Andy's post in question as a death wish as opposed to a death threat.

That's fair. I'd characterize it either as a death wish or as something in between. Andy wasn't threatening to mete out the justice himself, and he wasn't advocating anyone else do it, but if Andy saw someone go up to GF and shoot him for saying what he said, Andy would pat the executioner on the back and say well done, that was well deserved, he shouldn't have said that.

1854. Dan Szymborski Posted: July 10, 2012 at 05:13 PM (#4178884)

Andy wasn't threatening to mete out the justice himself, and he wasn't advocating anyone else do it, but if Andy saw someone go up to GF and shoot him for saying what he said, Andy would pat the executioner on the back and say well done, that was well deserved, he shouldn't have said that.

In other words, Andy's kind of a dilettante murderer, in tune with the whole "killing thing" as long as he doesn't really have to handle the heavy lifting.

Let's all chant it together: HIGH FIVE

Let's all chant it together: HIGH FIVE

That's not a high five, that's two serious thinkers thinking serious thoughts seriously.

You can tell because they are wearing smoking jackets and have pipes.

I'm reminded of this (WARNING: NSFW), particularly the portion from 1:00-1:20.

Fear of a Black Hat was hilarious.

Let's all chant it together: HIGH FIVE

What can I say? Being 2 against 50 brings out the camaraderie.

Again, I don't mind government arbitrating between two parties, what I mind is government deciding on all the rules.

My point was that government sets the framework for what can and can't be arbitrated. In ancient Rome, you could sell yourself into slavery, in 2012 America, you can't (legally, at any rate). Similarly in 2012 America you can waive liability (in some cases). I am not at all sure that would have been legal in ancient Rome. There was certainly no legal way to set up a limited liability association.

The fact of the matter is that governments do decide a lot of the rules. And among those rules are those that determine whether corporations can exist as a matter of law.

I'm certainly not going to do anything that stands in the way of presenting what a political thread is, in all its uncensored glory.

A public forum for you to demonstrate that your ability to connect meaning to words has severely degraded?

I mean, if all you're doing is intentionally trying to bring down the quality of exchange in the thread, then the joke's on us. But you seem to be oscillating between that and attempting to make a serious argument. Only you're not very good at the serious argument part, so when you invariably fail at it, you switch back to "haha, you fell for it".

And somehow, everyone else is being immature.

What can I say? Being 2 against 50 brings out the camaraderie

What you fail to realize is that the "50" aren't calling you out because they're all aligned in some giant political group think. In fact, they're all over the board, and pretty much the only thing they all agree on is that you and Ray are some crazy assed pie-in-the-sky hippies sometimes.

There's a reason why people distinguish between freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The press is a unique sort of organization in the world. (Or at least, it was.)

I don't buy it. J. Random Company is prevented from freely using its resources to influence a political campaign.

Unless it goes out and buys a media outlet.

Sorry. Doesn't fly. And it's got nothing to do with Rupert Murdoch. Plenty of overtly partisan media outlets at the other end of the spectrum.

All 2012 conservatives should be hailing Andy for outsourcing murder, while denying that he ever did so. Repeal Andycare!

Look, I don't mind being slammed for what I wrote, but at least get it right. I did NOT say that anyone opposing Obamacare was "a murderer" or that they "should be shot". I was reacting to one specific comment made by one specific person, who said that anyone who couldn't either afford health insurance or get someone to pay for it voluntarily, should not get any such care---an attitude which effectively says that the person should simply die in the street.

This is supposed to be a defense of your 100% serious position that someone should be shot for saying what his position is?

I notice you didn't quote Good Face's words. And at this point my position on Good Face is simply to let the Golden Rule apply his own prescription to himself, should he ever find himself unable to prove that he had health insurance or a credit card. Nothing personal.

Or Ray's crusade against copying movies onto DVDs from a network that does nothing to prevent such copying, allows open forum discussions of such copying under the vigilant eye of its management team, and has yet to shut down a single post on that subject.

? My "crusade" was against the fact that you kept insisting that what you were doing was not copyright infringement, when it damned well was. You'll note that once you agreed that you were wrong on this point, I dropped the subject completely, and never brought it up again.

I made one offhand comment about DVD copying, a practice that's nearly universal among serious TCM viewers, and in your inimitable fashion you decided to jump in with your bee in the bonnet about copyright infringement / "stealing". If you hadn't done that, the whole topic of DVD recording would have begun and ended with that one offhand comment of mine. You were acting as a prosecuting attorney for a client who has repeatedly demonstrated zero interest in your strange crusade.

----------------------------------------

a) I'd characterize Andy's post in question as a death wish as opposed to a death threat.

A correct distinction, though not necessarily an important one for determining anything outside a courtroom.

Not that it makes what he said acceptable.

Fair enough, which puts me in Good Face's category, based on both of our remarks as quoted correctly.

But if he'd said something like "Good Face is a waste of skin" we (probably) wouldn't be having this conversation. Or if we did, it'd be substantially different.

Okay, then when he makes statements like the one he did in #758, I'll simply consider him to be the unfortunate byproduct of an unused abortion coupon. I'm getting more moderate by the minute.

----------------------------------------

a) I'd characterize Andy's post in question as a death wish as opposed to a death threat.

That's fair. I'd characterize it either as a death wish or as something in between. Andy wasn't threatening to mete out the justice himself, and he wasn't advocating anyone else do it, but if Andy saw someone go up to GF and shoot him for saying what he said, Andy would pat the executioner on the back and say well done, that was well deserved, he shouldn't have said that.

Not really. I would more likely just look up from my bowl of cereal and say "That's a shame."

In fact, they're all over the board, and pretty much the only thing they all agree on is that you and Ray are some crazy assed pie-in-the-sky hippies sometimes.

"From moderately liberal middle-class white males between 25 and 50 to extremely liberal middle-class white males between 25 and 50, Baseball Think Factory posters represent the gold standard of diversity among groups of liberal middle-class white males."

This is supposed to be a defense of your 100% serious position that someone should be shot for saying what his position is?

I notice you didn't quote Good Face's words.

That's because they were, you know, words, and not any justification for approving of him getting shot on the basis of them.

Your persecution complex is a thing to behold.

Fear of a Black Hat was hilarious.

Funnier, IMHO, than This is Spinal Tap, which of course inspired it.

Your persecution complex is a thing to behold.


To actually think there's a tremendous diversity on the political spectrum among the people I was arguing with last few pages is patently absurd on its face. Maybe compared to workers.org, but certainly not a representative slice of the bigger pizza.

Fear of a Black Hat was hilarious.

Funnier, IMHO, than This is Spinal Tap, which of course inspired it.

I choose to believe that all previous 1869 posts were about how great Fear of a Black Hat is.

I choose to believe that all previous 1869 posts were about how great Fear of a Black Hat is.

In which case, my work here is done.

To actually think there's a tremendous diversity on the political spectrum among the people I was arguing with last few pages is patently absurd on its face.

The vast majority of the questions posed to you today have been ontological, not political.

To actually think there's a tremendous diversity on the political spectrum among the people I was arguing with last few pages is patently absurd on its face.

Pointing out that fictitious legal entities don't have natural rights makes people guilty of thinking, not of groupthinking. You're conflating the two. If I come on here and argue that the world ceases to exist when I close my eyes, the chorus of people pointing out that it doesn't are not necessarily political bedfellows.

the chorus of people pointing out that it doesn't are not necessarily political bedfellows

Yet, magically, in this case, they were. Why deny that?

Why deny that?

Because the voices in your head are not telling you the truth.

I await Robinred's list of who argued corporations/free speech with Dan on the last two pages, and where their political affiliations lay.

Approve:

Appeals court rules city can't scare smokers with images

There are some things Mayor Bloomberg just can’t regulate.

A federal appeals court today snuffed out the city Department of Health’s mandate that all stores that sell cigarettes display graphic anti-smoking ads near the cash register.

The decision — a blow to one of Bloomberg’s most prized health initiatives — said the city cannot supercede existing federal regulations on tobacco health warnings.

“It is nice when the city gets it in the end,” said Ralph Bombardier, executive director of the New York State Association of Service Stations.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/appeals_court_rules_nyc_can_scare_08aQK1vDxERYZn0p6cniIM#ixzz20GGxeHbM

Approve:

Appeals court rules city can't scare smokers with images

There are some things Mayor Bloomberg just can’t regulate.

I like Bloomberg, but sometimes, I mean seriously, banning oversized sodas? Its stuff like that that makes me thinks that just perhaps, Dave is not insane

That's because they were, you know, words, and not any justification for approving of him getting shot on the basis of them.

The urge to collectivize typically runs hand-in-hand with the urge to liquidate dissidents. Andy's id has a long and infamous historical lineage.

Yet, magically, in this case, they were. Why deny that?

Maybe, like Dan, you failed to read the posts by people who agreed with the reasoning in CU, but still questioned the status of corporations as naturally-occurring entities that transcend governments. This isn't about left/right politics the way you want it to be.

Blatant hijack attempt, in London some folks are upset, because of a security measure being taken by the Gov... which wnats to put a SAM battery on the roof of their apartment building

and silly me, I'm mad at Bloomberg trying to ban big gulps...

Blatant hijack attempt, in London some folks are upset, because of a security measure being taken by the Gov... which wnats to put a SAM battery on the roof of their apartment building

Yeah. It's an "anti-terrorism" measure, where the gov wants to put missile batteries on apartment buildings to blow up planes that might come to close to events. It's truly, fantastically ######.

But denying existential primacy to fictive legal entities is where the real tyranny begins.

I've gotten a few complaints. Although I know political threads will get heated, I've set this catch-all thread as an interim system until I am able to finish the beta. For some people, that compromise isn't good enough.

As I've mentioned many, many, many times I'm not happy when I have to spend time going hands on moderating discussions. For the most part, thank goodness, it's not often necessary.

One time it is absolutely necessary is when someone purposely trolls conversations. In those cases my actions are usually quick and the offender gets his account suspended. When a person clearly posts his intentions to troll, a suspension is immediate.

I just read the following:

One great thing about no longer having to administrate political threads is that I get to fully participate in these political threads. As I intend to in the future. If that results in fewer political threads or, god forbidding, zero political threads, well, I guess that's the market deciding.

and

I'm somewhat surprised it didn't get him time in the penalty box. Jim's in charge of this now, so I'm free to flame war to my heart's content without that conflict of interest. And since I'm strongly against there being political threads at all (until people have to opt-in), I'm certainly not going to do anything that stands in the way of presenting what a political thread is, in all its uncensored glory.

Actually Dan, and everyone else who posts on this site, it is not OK "to flame war to [your] heart's content" on the site. I have made my intentions perfectly clear in numerous conversations. That you choose to demonstrate your disapproval in such a way is your problem.

I have suspended Dan's account until such time that I am able to read over more of this thread (which I look forward to as much as I would a colonoscopy). This might take some time, however, because I have plans to spend some time with my wife (who is just recovering from a recent trip to the hospital), eating a good meal, and watching the All Star Game. Since I plan on sleeping tonight and must work in the morning, my response might take a day or two. At that time, I will try to discuss the situation with Dan and will take further action.

I will be around in case any other temper tantrums further disrupt the site. (The adults know how to find me.)

Before I go, and to be clear, the political threads aren't the wild west of the Internet. Although I'm willing to give some latitude to the participants, it's not "anything goes". Please conduct yourselves appropriately. This is especially true if have any type of moderator rights.

Have a good night and enjoy the All Star Game.

Take it to the ASG thread.

Yowza.

Have a good night and enjoy the All Star Game.

you too.

"From moderately liberal middle-class white males between 25 and 50 to extremely liberal middle-class white males between 25 and 50, Baseball Think Factory posters represent the gold standard of diversity among groups of liberal middle-class white males."

I just want to say that I'm Asian, Cambodian/Chinese to be specific.

I don't know how far behind I am but only a day I think...

Two points from page 16: Not only is Szym correct on Citizens United, but he and the other libertarians on this completely flipped my position on this. Just so no one can say that OTP threads on BBTF are a wankery fest where no one actually ever changes their mind. I. Changed. My. Mind. I think corporate and big doner spending on campaigns is reprehensible, disgusting, and very probably damaging to society [although this is unprovable and hence not actionable]. It's also constitutional - by Amendment 1. Period. Period. Period.

Now, I am a not at all a believer in the Constitution as a sacred document, but certain things it got right and shouldn't be messed with. Amendment Uno is one of them.
And furthermore - it's insulting to "low info" voters to presume that while YOU AND I would never be swayed by some base and falsehood filled TV ad, "THOSE DUMMIES" are saps and can't think for themselves.

So, how to prevent buying influence? I have no answer. I think the libertarian answer -- which has it merits, if some practicability questions -- is that if you reduce the inflence/power of elected officials, then they won't be worth buying anymore. However - as SLAPP suits and threats show - Money Is Power regardless of elections. So the Communist solution is to redistribute enough wealth that no entity can effectively wield the $ stick. Would taxing the beejeezus out of advertising time (50%) violate the 1st amendment. So if a 30 second spot on NBC at 7pm costs $150,000 now, NBC would have to pay $75K in federal speech redistribution funds and would pass that on to the consumer. (I know, I know I suck at microeconomics; surely this would end commercial television as we know it, blah, blah, blah) I don't think it's wise/practicable to distinguish between commercial and political advertising.

Or alternatively forcing greater "equal time" restraints on broadcasts?

Not sure how relevant this is in a cable/internet media world anyway. I suppose the FBA regulates Cable. Is there any other kind of (political) spending that is comparable/relavent to TV spots? Certainly no one cares about billboards or websites, do they? I cannot even remember the last political ad I saw.

The real answer to political spending is thinking for yourself.

I hate when I turn on the radio and there is a discussion of how much more money candidate X has raised compared to candidate Y, and how this presents a problem for candidate Y. If candidates attempt to drown out each others message by spending a gajillion dollars, why can't the public see through this and tune that crap out? Stupid way to practice democracy. America deserves better.

I just want to say that I'm Asian, Cambodian/Chinese to be specific.

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm only middle class when compared to a Romney.

I had you pegged for peasant.

I hate when I turn on the radio and there is a discussion of how much more money candidate X has raised compared to candidate Y, and how this presents a problem for candidate Y. If candidates attempt to drown out each others message by spending a gajillion dollars, why can't the public see through this and tune that crap out? Stupid way to practice democracy. America deserves better.

I'm pretty sure you diagnose the problem in the text of your complaint. There is no un-"stupid way to practice democracy." At least not on the scales of humanity as we know it. Democracy might work for city state of 250K or so (though Ancient Athens only had 30K voting men at its height), but when you're dealing with hundreds of millions of people...

I honestly don't see a way to make that less than stupid. Lowest common denominators get pretty low in aggregates of millions.

I had you pegged for peasant.

Prole.

Also, way lower class right now. I probably should apply for food stamps, and the only reason I haven't yet is because I feel I can almost turn the corner.....

I cannot even remember the last political ad I saw

Well, if you watch only one this year, make it be Jeff Barth for Congress.

#1890 As my postings in this thread show, Dan in particular also changed my position.

Which is why I was so disappointed that Dan chose to rather blatantly troll the thread. Full disclosure. I'm one of those who complained, and it's absolutely the first time I've ever complained to Jim about anybody. I've counted Dan as a friend for a long time and found him almost always a pleasure to read. Today I put him on ignore. Also the absolute first time I haven't been eager to hear what Dan had to say.

#1897 - Loved it! Thanks for passing that one along.

DB

"I've ridden an ostrich... I've done a lot of stuff."