ThudMaker

TMI

The sun sets on the threadkiller!

Originally Posted by lug Hmmmmm..........Amost read like a challenge................ I read it the same way. You could spam the mp3s and I could be the first to lock the thread!

P1gg1e in da house!

For a couple of weeks you really were the threadkiller!

I wonder what else he has on his computer!

I thought you just laughed in threads these days? You know. No smarm and all that. U mad, bra?

Looks like Oldivor is begging for a timeout.

Thudmaker's the Mod here now? I thought it was Thumper...I get thumps and thuds confused. Yes. Thumper wanted to be relieved on this forum, so I took his place.

Make a thread here. There needs to be more ot anyway.Yes.

Originally Posted by Bonoman Well, that's one way to tell me that I'm not wanted here since pretty much all I ever posted were off-topic threads... Feels strange to think, though, that this very well might be my last post ever on HCBF... No. It won't be.

Originally Posted by t3ch HCBF is now run by loser nazi's who don't allow parody or off-topic threads. If you'd like, I could show you how a "loser nazi" would really run this forum. If you'd like. Originally Posted by Thumper Yeah! The new mods are all fascists. I learned from watching you, Thumper.

There are exceptions to every rule; I apologize for speaking in absolutes. I have no problem with your absolutes. People/Corporations with money, power, fame have more influence than you and I. It's that way in any political system in the real (not ideal) world.

Perhaps not, but what about corporations who have a much greater amount of money than any private citizen (or organization) could ever hope to hold?You mean people like Soros, Gates and Buffett who have more at their disposal than most corporations ever could come up with for this purpose? It's also kind of unfair that those people have more influence than my union buddy down the block.

Corporations can be owned by foreigners.No kidding?

I do agree that we will almost certainly see more campaign advertising as a result of this decision. My concern is not so much with the quantity of said advertising as the agenda of those who are underwriting it.Yep. I think it will make the campaign season even more ugly and dirty.

Oh, I gotcha now... I misread it. That's not terrible, I guess. It'd be funny to see an ad on HBO that says "Boy, so and so is a real piece of {censored}..." Can't wait to see all of the Focus on the Family campaign ads in 2012. This is why I started this thread. Do you think that we will see even more ads than before? It's already bad.

Or it dilutes the point you're trying to make, but that's only a minor inconvenience, eh? :poke:The only minor inconvenience is your postings aren't very good rebuttals. It's kind of a tough read.

I'm actually doing my law review article on this decision, so it's been interesting to see what people have to say. Some things to consider: 1. The overwhelming majority of corporations in the US are very small, with only one or a few shareholders. 2. This decision only strikes down the ban on corporate expenditures that are made independently of a candidate. A corporation can not contribute a dime directly to a candidate, nor can it coordinate with a candidate about an expenditure. 3. The only sufficient reason for limiting political speech is the prevention of corruption or the appearance thereof. The Court ruled long ago that independent expenditures did not contain risks of corruption. 4. The NRA and the ACLU were both on the side of Citizens United urging the Court to rule as it did today. I figure it must be a damn good argument for these two groups to agree. Great information. Thanks for the post.

I would like to point out however that this "famous mod" you are mentioning stated (as I recall to the best of my ability) "*paraphrased* you can post a link, and a portion, just don't copy past the entire/vast majority of the information in the link". What was done with reference to your quote is similar to a journalist using elipsis to snip out the remainder of a sentence to add weight to the idea of the statement that they want. Your quote's reduction happened to occur at the end of the sentence, but not the end of an idea. This kind of editorialization is how people on all sides of politics, religion, and other highly passionate organizations attempt to skew fact in their direction. I like to think of it as disinformation by fact, or a lie of omission. It's one reason I dislike michael moore. Sure he presents facts, but only the ones that support his ideas. People like moore (imo) are a detriment to the image of the united states. Once people are able to see past their own one sided agendas and take part in real dialog and want real change, understanding that it can't all be their way, then perhaps we will be able to move toward being a society that does some good. But hey, we've been in end times since 1844, the clock's still ticking down, just a matter of when the alarm goes off.Interesting angle of attack since you cherry picked one sentence in more than several posts in this thread, including the OP.

Unless you think every time I've said "I no longer take you seriously" is somehow a specific reference to Honduras, I can't imagine what you think is... In any case, this conversation is coming dangerously close to me treating you like you have any intention other than wasting time, so I'm done... okay

MAYBE SCORSESE COULD FILM IT! AQKS4_Y7QCI

REMEMBER HONDURASWhy are you yelling?

I haven't brought up Honduras since that discussion. The only times I've even mentioned it has been when you have (and you've mentioned it more than once).