Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Re: #Los Angeles votes to end corporate personhood

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Doug Bashford

unread,
Dec 7, 2011, 4:09:53 PM12/7/11
to

about:
#Los Angeles votes to end corporate personhood;
On Wed, 7 Dec 2011, 6338 Dead, 1481 since 1/20/09 wrote:


>
> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/06/los-angeles-votes-to-end-to-
> corporate-personhood/
>
> Los Angeles votes to end corporate personhood
> By Eric W. Dolan
> Tuesday, December 6, 2011
>
>
> The Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously to support a resolution
> calling for a constitutional amendment that would assert that
> corporations are not entitled to constitutional rights, and that money is
> not the same as free speech.

Well I'll be jiggered!


> The resolution was backed by Move to Amend, a national coalition working
> to abolish corporate personhood and overturn U.S. Supreme Court’s
> controversial Citizens United ruling. The decision gave corporations and
> unions the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence
> elections, so long as their actions are not coordinated with a
> candidate’s campaign.

We're all tired of the Wall Street not Main Street
lobbyists and banksters pushing America around,
Let's make it a ballot ininitiative!

>
> “Move to Amend’s proposed amendment would provide the basis for
> overturning the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v.
> Federal Election Commission,” stated Mary Beth Fielder, Co-Coordinator of
> LA Move to Amend. “The Supreme Court has no legitimate right to grant
> people’s rights to corporations. We must clearly establish that it is we,
> The People, who are meant to rule.”
>
> City Council President Eric Garcetti sponsored the resolution, according
> to the Los Angeles Times. He said the largely-symbolic legislation was
> necessary because “big special interest money” was causing gridlock in
> Washington.
>
> Move to Amend hopes that to get similar resolutions approved across the
> nation through city councils and direct vote by ballot initiative.
>
> “Our plan is build a movement that will drive this issue into Congress
> from the grassroots,” stated Mary Beth Fielder, Co-Coordinator of LA Move
> to Amend. “The American people are behind us on this and these campaigns
> help our federal representatives see that we mean business. Our very
> democracy is at stake. Our goal is for 50 towns and cities to put Move to
> Amend’s resolution on the ballot for the Presidential election in
> November, 2012.”
>
> Democratic Sens. Tom Udall of New Mexico and Michael Bennet of Colorado
> have introduced a constitutional amendment that would overturn Citizens
> United by granting Congress and the states the authority to regulate the
> campaign finance system. The amendment would not dictate any specific
> policies or regulations, Udall said, so that it could garner some support
> from Republicans, who have blocked attempts to overturn the ruling in the
> past.

The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
The rational change their world view to fit the facts.

6338 Dead, 1481 since 1/20/09

unread,
Dec 7, 2011, 4:22:29 PM12/7/11
to
On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 13:09:53 -0800, Doug Bashford <Pla...@work.edu>
wrote:

>
>about:
>#Los Angeles votes to end corporate personhood;
> On Wed, 7 Dec 2011, 6338 Dead, 1481 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>
>
>>
>> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/06/los-angeles-votes-to-end-to-
>> corporate-personhood/
>>
>> Los Angeles votes to end corporate personhood
>> By Eric W. Dolan
>> Tuesday, December 6, 2011
>>
>>
>> The Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously to support a resolution
>> calling for a constitutional amendment that would assert that
>> corporations are not entitled to constitutional rights, and that money is
>> not the same as free speech.
>
>Well I'll be jiggered!
>
>
>> The resolution was backed by Move to Amend, a national coalition working
>> to abolish corporate personhood and overturn U.S. Supreme Court’s
>> controversial Citizens United ruling. The decision gave corporations and
>> unions the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence
>> elections, so long as their actions are not coordinated with a
>> candidate’s campaign.
>
>We're all tired of the Wall Street not Main Street
>lobbyists and banksters pushing America around,
>Let's make it a ballot ininitiative!

In California it would pass by an overwhelming margin.

Actually, that's not a bad idea. Make it a state initiative, and then
it eventually gets to the federal courts.
--
"So called payroll taxes aren't taxes at all" -- Steve Canyon, trying to explain
why millionaires don't actually pay less taxes than median income families.

Steve

unread,
Dec 7, 2011, 4:57:08 PM12/7/11
to
<GUFFAW> It's already been to the courts, you numbskull. Your side
lost.


So here we have Zepp lying in an attempt to cover up
his previous stupid claim about capital gains.


"I've never claimed that listing cap gains on a 1040
will put you in jail, only that trying to list them
at a lower rate would."

--David B.(Zepp) Jamieson Aug 5 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/1634d84e583d3c46?hl=en&


....but here is, in fact, where he made the very
claim he denies he ever made........

"If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll
be in jail soon enough."

--David B.(Zepp) Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en&


Doug Bashford

unread,
Dec 8, 2011, 12:58:06 PM12/8/11
to


On Wed, 07 Dec 2011, Steve wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Dec 2011, "6338 Dead wrote:
> >On Wed, 07 Dec, Doug Bashford wrote:
> >>about:
> >>#Los Angeles votes to end corporate personhood;
> >> On Wed, 7 Dec 2011, 6338 Dead wrote:


> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/06/los-angeles-votes-to-end-to-corporate-personhood/
> >>>
> >>> Los Angeles votes to end corporate personhood
> >>> By Eric W. Dolan
> >>> Tuesday, December 6, 2011
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously to support a resolution
> >>> calling for a constitutional amendment that would assert that
> >>> corporations are not entitled to constitutional rights, and that money is
> >>> not the same as free speech.
> >>
> >>Well I'll be jiggered!
> >>
> >>
> >>> The resolution was backed by Move to Amend, a national coalition working
> >>> to abolish corporate personhood and overturn U.S. Supreme Court’s
> >>> controversial Citizens United ruling. The decision gave corporations and
> >>> unions the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence
> >>> elections, so long as their actions are not coordinated with a
> >>> candidate’s campaign.
> >>
> >>We're all tired of the Wall Street against Main Street
> >>lobbyists and banksters pushing America around,
> >>Let's make it a ballot ininitiative!
> >
> >In California it would pass by an overwhelming margin.
> >
> >Actually, that's not a bad idea. Make it a state initiative, and then
> >it eventually gets to the federal courts.
>
>
> <GUFFAW> It's already been to the courts, you numbskull. Your side
> lost.

You are the first I've seen who admits he's
on the Wall Street against Main Street side,
and likes lobbyist pimps and bankster whores
pushing America around.

How much for your sister?

Steve

unread,
Dec 8, 2011, 5:31:57 PM12/8/11
to
On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 09:58:06 -0800, Doug Bashford <Pla...@work.edu>
<LOL> Actually, there's many, like myself, who live on easy street
because of "wall street."

Matt

unread,
Dec 8, 2011, 8:39:43 PM12/8/11
to
On Dec 8, 10:58 am, Doug Bashford <Play...@work.edu> wrote:
>   On Wed, 07 Dec 2011, Steve wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 07 Dec 2011, "6338 Dead wrote:
> > >On Wed, 07 Dec, Doug Bashford wrote:
> > >>about:
> > >>#Los Angeles votes to end corporate personhood;
> > >>  On Wed, 7 Dec 2011, 6338 Dead wrote:
> >http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/06/los-angeles-votes-to-end-to-cor...
Ignore the Lentil. He likes to claim he's rich and has all
these investments and yachts and apartment buildings.

Meanwhile, he spends all his time on Usenet posting
stupidity. Very believable.

Matt

Richard Steel

unread,
Dec 8, 2011, 10:33:34 PM12/8/11
to
So, you're cool with the idea that President Gingrich can shut down
the New York Times?

That he could demand Comedy Central censor all political humor from
"The Daily Show"?

You like the idea that President Gingrich is empowered to decide which
corporation will be allowed to express political views, and which
won't?

Matt

unread,
Dec 8, 2011, 10:45:30 PM12/8/11
to
Hm. You may not have heard of this, being a complete moron, but there
is this thing called the First Amendment.

>
> That he could demand Comedy Central censor all political humor from
> "The Daily Show"?

You know, you really are the stupidest poster on Usenet, and that is
really saying something.

>
> You like the idea that President Gingrich is empowered to decide which
> corporation will be allowed to express political views, and which
> won't?

President Gingrich.

ROFLMAO.

You know, Dick, you need to seek mental health. If none is available
in your
community, I highly recommend you kill yourself immediately.

Matt


Steve

unread,
Dec 9, 2011, 5:42:43 AM12/9/11
to
On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 17:39:43 -0800 (PST), Matt <mattt...@sprynet.com>
wrote:
Bratty Matty is a typical loser leftist... jealous of his
betters... <LOL> he has nothing

>Meanwhile, he spends all his time on Usenet posting
>stupidity. Very believable.
>
..wonder if Matty ever figured out what a deferred account is...


"generally Roth Ira money is tax free. You put money
into it POST tax, hence a deferred account. "
--mattt...@sprynet.com
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/eb129594eea307c7?hl=en


>Matt

Doug Bashford

unread,
Dec 9, 2011, 11:13:39 AM12/9/11
to


On Thu, 8 Dec 2011, Matt wrote:
> On Dec 8, 10:58 am, Doug Bashford wrote:
> >   On Wed, 07 Dec 2011, Steve wrote:
> > > On Wed, 07 Dec 2011, "6338 Dead wrote:
> > > >On Wed, 07 Dec, Doug Bashford wrote:

............snip

> > > <GUFFAW>  It's already been to the courts, you numbskull.  Your side
> > > lost.

Bashford:
> > You are the first I've seen who admits he's
> > on the Wall Street against Main Street side,
> > and likes lobbyist pimps and bankster whores
> > pushing America around.
> >
> > How much for your sister?
> >
> >   The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
> >   The rational change their world view to fit the facts.
>
> Ignore the Lentil.

I ignore all mindless kneejerks unless I find them
useful for illustrating a point. However, I'll often
respond to real human thought and truth-seeking.

> He likes to claim he's rich and has all
> these investments and yachts and apartment buildings.

Geeze, perhaps we should reduce the mini wage!

> Meanwhile, he spends all his time on Usenet posting
> stupidity. Very believable. > Matt

Well, Koch bro billionaires & Co do pay mini wage
to similar OCD mini intellects for similar
mindless shrieking. ...Seems all that their duties
entail is flopping around in kneejerk protest
on cue. ...It does have an impact on other
mini intellects who have sportsified their
patriotic duties. (Our founding fathers had ways
of devaluing that kind's presence.)

OCD mini intellects do very well at this kind
of factory office work. Typically these
kinds of conservative office workers drink too
much and strut around in rusty pick-ups and cowboy
costumes & marry ( ) in cowgirl costumes.
Fantasy is their only reality. But deep down they
know what they are really worth, which is why they act
like the employer class is kindly gifting them a job.
...which perhaps the employers are.

Doug Bashford

unread,
Dec 9, 2011, 11:29:00 AM12/9/11
to

about: Re: #Los Angeles votes to end corporate personhood;
On Thu, 8 Dec 2011, Richard Steel wrote:
> On Dec 7, Doug Bashford wrote:
> >   On Wed, 7 Dec 2011, 6338 Dead, 1481 since 1/20/09 wrote:


> > >http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/06/los-angeles-votes-to-end-to-
> > > corporate-personhood/
> >
> > > Los Angeles votes to end corporate personhood
> > > By Eric W. Dolan
> > > Tuesday, December 6, 2011

..................snip

Bashford:
> > We're all tired of the Wall Street not Main Street
> > lobbyists and banksters pushing America around,
> > Let's make it a ballot ininitiative!
> >

> >   The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
> >   The rational change their world view to fit the facts.


> So, you're cool with the idea that President Gingrich can shut down
> the New York Times?
>
> That he could demand Comedy Central censor all political humor from
> "The Daily Show"?
>
> You like the idea that President Gingrich is empowered to decide which
> corporation will be allowed to express political views, and which
> won't?

What ever has Fox-Limbaugh&Co given you
that you so eagerly swallowed causing
this nasty fit of regurgitation? !?

You obviously have very liberal values,
and can reason clearly,
but have swallowed their false reality.
False facts w good logic = wrong conclusion.
If you value the freedom to think (which many do not,)
You aught to learn how to fact check stuff.

==========
Any serial liar with a cult-like herd
would naturally train us to think that Truth
cannot be found, that all outside info is Evil.
For all serial liars, to remain credible, all
- Outside information MUST be discredited!
Particularly the most reliable and trusted
of all...Science. Next, the Media. Next, academia. etc

This is no Evil plot. It's just simple logic that
flows naturally from the given condition:
"Any serial liar with a cult-like following..."

The only rational question is:
"Does FoxLimbaugh&Co actually meet those criteria?"

Answer? Everybody but the herd knows.
But if you don't know, ...see above.
Then test it for yourself. Google might work.

Doug Bashford

unread,
Dec 9, 2011, 11:51:14 AM12/9/11
to

Mr.B1ack wrote:


> "6338 Dead, 1481 since 1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/06/los-angeles-votes-to-end-to-
> >corporate-personhood/
> >
> >Los Angeles votes to end corporate personhood
>
> So what's next, vote to ignore the 14th
> amendment so everybody can own slaves
> again ???

What cartoon did THAT wild-eyed "logic" come from?
Oh I know!
FoxLimbaugh&Co!

When you thought it up, did the veins on
your forhead buldge out Rush Limbaugh style?


==========
Any serial liar with a cult-like following
would naturally train us to think that Truth
cannot be found, that all outside info is Evil.
For all serial liars, to remain credible, all
- Outside information MUST be discredited!
Particularly the most reliable and trusted
of all...Science. ...But all outside information.

This is no Evil plot. It's just simple logic that
flows naturally from the given condition:
"Any serial liar with a cult-like following..."

The only rational question is:
"Does FoxLimbaugh&Co meet those criteria?"

Answer? Everybody but the cult members know.
But if you don't know, see above.
Then test it for yourself. Google might work.
...start by learning some "logical fallacies."


The Limbaugh Fallacy: Straw Man
www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply
ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a
distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that
position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following
pattern:

Dem has position X.
Repub presents position Y (which is a distorted version
of X).
Repub attacks position Y.
Therefore Repub joyously and loudly concludes X is
false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a
distorted version of a position simply does not constitute
an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect
an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is usually an incorrect
argumentation in reasoning resulting in a misconception or
presumption. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit
emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (appeal
to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships
between people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious
arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns
that obscure any logical argument.

Fallacies can be used to win arguments regardless of the
merits. Among such devices, discussed in more detail below,
are: "ignoring the question" to divert argument to unrelated
issues using a red herring, making the argument personal
(argumentum ad hominem) and discrediting the opposition's
character, "begging the question" (petito principi), the use
of the non-sequitor, false cause and effect (post hoc ergo
propter hoc), bandwagoning (everyone says so), the "false
dilemma" or "either-or fallacy" in which the situation is
oversimplified, "card-stacking" or selective use of facts,
and "false analogy". Another favorite device is the "false
generalization", an abstraction of the argument that shifts
discussion to platitudes where the facts of the matter are
lost. There are many, many more tricks to divert attention
from careful exploration of a subject.[1]

Fallacies can generally be classified as informal (premises
fail to support the proposed conclusion, but the argument is
structured properly) or formal (logical structure is
flawed). ...........snip

Richard Steel

unread,
Dec 9, 2011, 1:17:48 PM12/9/11
to
Not for corporations. According to you Lefties, Corporations are not
people, and thus they have no rights. Apparently, the First Amendment
does not protect TV, Movies, Books, radio, magazines, or pretty much
anything which involves more than one person. I guess standing on a
street corner shouting is covered.

> > That he could demand Comedy Central censor all political humor from
> > "The Daily Show"?

> You know, you really are the stupidest poster on Usenet, and that is
> really saying something.

And yet, you're unable to mount an effective counterargument to what I
wrote. I guess that makes you dumber than the dumbest guy on Usnet.

> > You like the idea that President Gingrich is empowered to decide which
> > corporation will be allowed to express political views, and which
> > won't?

> President Gingrich.

> ROFLMAO.
> > You know, Dick, you need to seek mental health. If none is available
> in your
> community, I highly recommend you kill yourself immediately.

I was given similar advice in 1980 when I wrote of President Reagan.
Or last year, when I wrote of the GOP taking back the House.

Richard Steel

unread,
Dec 9, 2011, 1:02:03 PM12/9/11
to
On Dec 8, 7:45 pm, Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
Not for the New York Times....it's a Corporation. According to you
Leftists, it has no rights. It's not a person. Therefore, the First
Amendment doesn't apply.

It's fun to scream "corporations are not people", but the real world
consequence is to completely shut down any free speech that's more
complex that someone shouting out their window.

If seven men who made a documentary which is critical of Hillary
Clinton aren't protected by the First Amendment....why should the New
York Times?

> > That he could demand Comedy Central censor all political humor from
> > "The Daily Show"?

> You know, you really are the stupidest poster on Usenet, and that is
> really saying something.

And yet, you're unable to mount an effective counterargument to what I
wrote. So, you're dumber than the dumbest?

> > You like the idea that President Gingrich is empowered to decide which
> > corporation will be allowed to express political views, and which
> > won't?

> President Gingrich.

> ROFLMAO.

> You know, Dick, you need to seek mental health. If none is available
> in your
> community, I highly recommend you kill yourself immediately.

I received similar, arrogant, dismissals thirty years ago when I
talked about President Reagan. Or, for that matter, last year when I
wrote about the Republicans taking back the House.



Matt

unread,
Dec 9, 2011, 1:34:46 PM12/9/11
to
You really are stupid.

Do you practice this to stay in shape, or does it just come spilling
out?

Have you READ the First Amendment?

Matt

Richard Steel

unread,
Dec 9, 2011, 2:11:24 PM12/9/11
to
Major premise: The Left believes that since corporations are not
people they are not protected by the First Amendment.

Minor Premise: The New York Times is a corporation.

Conclusion: According to the Left, the New York Times is not
protected by the First Amendment.

QED.

This is the part where Matt blusters impotently.

Matt

unread,
Dec 9, 2011, 1:29:02 PM12/9/11
to
Correct!

Give the idiot his prize.

Matt

Matt

unread,
Dec 9, 2011, 2:23:56 PM12/9/11
to
No, idiot. Freedom of the PRESS.

You are stupid and ignorant.

Matt

wy

unread,
Dec 9, 2011, 2:16:31 PM12/9/11
to
But its individual reporters are.

You see, goofball, there's a difference between a building with a name
on it and a person with a name.


Richard Steel

unread,
Dec 9, 2011, 2:33:37 PM12/9/11
to
Therefore, you agree that President Gingrich should be able to shut
down the New York Times.

Richard Steel

unread,
Dec 9, 2011, 2:47:42 PM12/9/11
to
> > Minor Premise: The New York Times is a corporation.

> > Conclusion: According to the Left, the New York Times is not
> > protected by the First Amendment.

> > QED.

> No, idiot. Freedom of the PRESS.

The Press is, by definition, a corporation. The First Amendment
recognizes that corporations are protected.

You can't have it both ways. If the corporation named "The New York
Times" is protected by the First Amendment....then so are all other
corporations.

If the corporation named "Citizens United" isn't protected...neither
is The New York Times, CBS, Time Magazine, or Comedy Central.

> > This is the part where Matt blusters impotently.

> You are stupid and ignorant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmwqnqL3Hbg





Matt

unread,
Dec 9, 2011, 2:57:34 PM12/9/11
to
And thus we have it.

Dick Head Steel is an idiot.

Matt

Matt

unread,
Dec 9, 2011, 3:43:28 PM12/9/11
to
He's just another Lentil, in a long list of Lentils here.

They seem to think that anything that applies to The People is being a
"leftie".
What being left-handed has to do with believing in the Constitution,
I'm not really
clear on. It appears they are badly brain damaged, and have been
released from
the institutions they were kept in for years when their Conservative
states ran
out of money.

Matt

Matt

unread,
Dec 9, 2011, 3:43:57 PM12/9/11
to
you are an idiot?

Yes.

matt


Richard Steel

unread,
Dec 9, 2011, 5:09:51 PM12/9/11
to
Is it your position that the New York Times is NOT a corporation?

That factoid would, no doubt, come as quite a shock to their
stockholders.

http://www.bing.com/finance/search?q=NYT&FORM=DTPFSA&qpvt=new+york+times+stocks

Please list the number of newspapers which AREN'T corporations, and
post the links right here ---------------------->





Richard Steel

unread,
Dec 9, 2011, 5:12:40 PM12/9/11
to
> > > Have you READ the First Amendment?

> > Major premise: The Left believes that, since corporations are not
> > people, they are not protected by the First Amendment.

> > Minor Premise: The New York Times is a corporation.
>
> > Conclusion: According to the Left, the New York Times is not
> > protected by the First Amendment.

> But its individual reporters are.

According the the Left, Paul Krugman can write his economic theories
in chalk on the sidewalk while Jon Stewart is allowed to stand in the
parking lot of a local 7/11 to discuss the issues of the day. The
second either draws a paycheck from a corporation, they lose those
rights. .

If Obama can regulate Citizen's United, then the future President
Gingrich can do the same with Comedy Central and the New York Times.

> You see, goofball, there's a difference between a building with a name
> on it and a person with a name.

Paul Krugman's first printing rights are owned by the corporation
called The New York Times. Krugman is paid with a corporate check.
The corporation make money selling his words. Paul's words printed
with corporate money, and it's distributed with corporate money.

So in what way, exactly, is Paul Krugman not a part of the
corporation?

Does Paul Krugman lose his First Amendment rights when paid by a
corporation? If not, then why did Citizen's United run afoul with the
Department of Justice? Why this corporation, and not the other?

(But then, Free Speech is a virtue that the Canadians never really
embraced. Indeed, in recent years they have pretty much abandoned the
concept, preferring a fascist government where the Prime Minister
literally strangles people who ask unwanted questions.)

Richard Steel

unread,
Dec 9, 2011, 5:19:12 PM12/9/11
to


> He's just another Lentil, in a long list of Lentils here.

What is it with you and "lentils"? Is this your snooty way of
accusing me of being working class?

> They seem to think that anything that applies to The People is being a
> "leftie".

Quite the opposite. It's conservatives who are concerned with "the
People". The modern Left believes that the Elite should make all
major decisions for Americans, from Health Care, to teenaged
employment, to the amount of salt in our food, and who should be
allowed on the air.

> What being left-handed has to do with believing in the Constitution, I'm not really
> clear on.

If you're so dense that you haven't yet grasped the idea that "Lefty"
refers to Progressives, perhaps you're not ready to post on Usenet.

> It appears they are badly brain damaged, and have been
> released from
> the institutions they were kept in for years when their Conservative
> states ran
> out of money.

I can't help but notice that nothing you wrote applied to the subject
at hand. Instead, you babbled about your imagined intellectual
superiority.

Richard Steel

unread,
Dec 9, 2011, 6:01:57 PM12/9/11
to
Nope. Rather brilliant, actually. Thanks for asking though.


Matt

unread,
Dec 9, 2011, 6:24:25 PM12/9/11
to
A legend in your own mind. Which is plenty empty enough to hold
billions
of delusions.

Look, kid, until you learn civics, spelling and grammar, just stay out
of
battles in which you are only half prepared.

Matt

Matt

unread,
Dec 9, 2011, 6:25:01 PM12/9/11
to
It is my position that you are a moron.

Now, learn about the Constitution, it will come up next year in 2nd
grade, I'm sure.

>
> That factoid would, no doubt,

Prove you are a moron? Yes.

Matt

Matt

unread,
Dec 9, 2011, 6:25:57 PM12/9/11
to
On Dec 9, 3:19 pm, Richard Steel <rsteel2...@aol.com> wrote:
> > He's just another Lentil, in a long list of Lentils here.
>
> What is it with you and "lentils"?  Is this your snooty way of
> accusing me of being working class?

No, it is my way of saying you are a Lentil.

Anything else, poster boy for public schools?

Matt

Richard Steel

unread,
Dec 9, 2011, 6:45:37 PM12/9/11
to
"It's not bragging if it's true."
Rush Limbaugh.

Richard Steel

unread,
Dec 9, 2011, 6:46:23 PM12/9/11
to
Thus you concede that I'm correct, and you're wrong.

Richard Steel

unread,
Dec 9, 2011, 6:48:59 PM12/9/11
to
On Dec 9, 3:25 pm, Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
Where does a fucking moron, like yourself, a mouth breather who's
incapable of stringing together a sensible argument, come off looking
down his nose at, well, anyone?

Matt

unread,
Dec 9, 2011, 6:52:27 PM12/9/11
to
On Dec 9, 4:48 pm, Richard Steel <rsteel2...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 9, 3:25 pm, Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 9, 3:19 pm, Richard Steel <rsteel2...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > He's just another Lentil, in a long list of Lentils here.
>
> > > What is it with you and "lentils"?  Is this your snooty way of
> > > accusing me of being working class?
>
> > No, it is my way of saying you are a Lentil.
>
> > Anything else, poster boy for public schools?
>
> Where does a fucking moron,

No, sorry, you aren't my type.

Matt

Matt

unread,
Dec 9, 2011, 6:51:48 PM12/9/11
to
a moron, yes.

By the way, STUPID, The New York Times is a newspaper. It is not a
corporation. If you had a positive IQ, you'd know that. But, as usual
you prove your own Lentilness.

Matt


Steve

unread,
Dec 9, 2011, 7:06:50 PM12/9/11
to
On Fri, 9 Dec 2011 15:24:25 -0800 (PST), Matt <mattt...@sprynet.com>
wrote:
"As the wattage increases, the loss decreases.
I didn't quite believe this either, but was pointed
at some good evidence of this.
In fact, it makes sense to a certain degree, the
lossage becomes insignificant quickly."
--mattt...@sprynet.com Apr 29, 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/d8ff3e51e76c1f45

Canyon note: See what "makes sense" to a moron? Matt is
not only not the sharpest knife in the drawer, he's apparently
had some nasty encounters with the disposal..

Steve

unread,
Dec 9, 2011, 7:06:50 PM12/9/11
to
On Fri, 9 Dec 2011 15:25:01 -0800 (PST), Matt <mattt...@sprynet.com>
wrote:
More ignorance from Matt the moron..

"generally Roth Ira money is tax free. You put money
into it POST tax, hence a deferred account. "
--mattt...@sprynet.com
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/eb129594eea307c7?hl=en

Canyon Note:

A deferred IRA is where you put money in PRE tax. On
the other hand, you Put money into a ROTH post tax
meaning that you've already paid
whatever taxes you owe... nothing has been deferred
and the earnings are tax free.

Steve

unread,
Dec 9, 2011, 7:06:50 PM12/9/11
to
On Fri, 9 Dec 2011 15:25:57 -0800 (PST), Matt <mattt...@sprynet.com>
wrote:
"The total number of acres of crop land in the US is: 2,655,382 acres."
--mattt...@sprynet.com
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/61f7f3da22b98987?hl=en

Canyon Note:
Total cropland used for crops in the USA (2002) was
340 million acres, not <LOL> 2.6 million acres...
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB14/eib14d.pdf

Matt says the total cropland is about 250 sq ft per person when
it's actually well over 32,000 sq feet per person...

Matt

unread,
Dec 9, 2011, 6:51:05 PM12/9/11
to
Only a complete moron would quote a lying drug using felon like
Limbaugh and think it makes a good point.

So, you admit to being a complete moron.

Thanks
Matt

Richard Steel

unread,
Dec 9, 2011, 8:20:56 PM12/9/11
to
>brilliant.

You're only saying that because it's true.

> By the way, STUPID, The New York Times is a newspaper. It is not a
> corporation.

The paper is owned by the New York Times Corporation, a comglomerate
which includes:

International Herald Tribune of Paris, France
The New York Times of New York City

[edit] New England Media Group

Two of the three largest-circulation newspapers in Massachusetts,
purchased in 1993 (Boston) and 1999 (Worcester). This group also
includes boston.com.

The Boston Globe of Boston, Massachusetts
Telegram & Gazette of Worcester, Massachusetts

[edit] Regional Media Group

Thirteen dailies and one weekly newspaper primarily in the Southern
United States, including titles in Alabama, California, Florida,
Louisiana, North Carolina and South Carolina.

The Gadsden Times of Gadsden, Alabama
The Tuscaloosa News of Tuscaloosa, Alabama
Petaluma Argus-Courier of Petaluma, California (weekly)
The Press Democrat of Santa Rosa, California
The Gainesville Sun of Gainesville, Florida
The Ledger of Lakeland, Florida
Sarasota Herald-Tribune of Sarasota, Florida
Star-Banner of Ocala, Florida
The Courier of Houma, Louisiana
The Daily Comet of Thibodaux, Louisiana
The Dispatch of Lexington, North Carolina
Times-News of Hendersonville, North Carolina
The Star-News of Wilmington, North Carolina
Spartanburg Herald-Journal of Spartanburg, South Carolina

[edit] Other

About.com
The New York Times Syndicate and News Service
Fenway Sports Group (17%)
Boston Red Sox
Fenway Park
Liverpool Football Club
New England Sports Network (NESN) (80%)
Donohue Malbaie, Inc.
Madison Paper Industries

WQXR

So, yes, The New York Times is part of a huge corporation.

Matt

unread,
Dec 9, 2011, 8:24:26 PM12/9/11
to
> >an idiot.
>
> You're only saying that because it's true.

Yep, I agree, you are the stupidest person on the planet.

>
> > By the way, STUPID, The New York Times is a newspaper. It is not a
> > corporation.
>
> The paper is owned by the New York Times Corporation, a comglomerate
> which includes:

Ohhhh, now it is the NEW YORK TIMES CORPORATION.

So, basically, you lied, you got caught, you got shown to be a moron,
and then you tried to change your story.

You are a Lentil.

Too. Stupid. To. Post.

Now, little Lentil, why is it your wives have all left you and your
boyfriend
dumped you?

Please, tell us?

Matt
Message has been deleted

Richard Steel

unread,
Dec 11, 2011, 4:02:37 PM12/11/11
to
"I had learned not to care," he wrote. "I blew a few smoke rings,
remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little
blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though. ..."

"Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd been headed: the final, fatal
role of the young would-be black man," Obama wrote. "Except the highs
hadn't been about that, me trying to prove what a down brother I was.
Not by then, anyway. I got high for just the opposite effect,
something that could push questions of who I was out of my mind,
something that could flatten out the landscape of my heart, blur the
edges of my memory. I had discovered that it didn't make any
difference whether you smoked reefer in the white classmate's
sparkling new van, or in the dorm room of some brother you'd met down
at the gym, or on the beach with a couple of Hawaiian kids who had
dropped out of school and now spent most of their time looking for an
excuse to brawl. ... You might just be bored, or alone. Everybody
was welcome into the club of disaffection."
B. Obama
"Dreams of My Father"

Richard Steel

unread,
Dec 11, 2011, 4:13:51 PM12/11/11
to
> > Where does a fucking moron, like yourself, a mouth breather
> > who's incapable of stringing together a sensible argument,
> > come off looking down his nose at, well, anyone?

> No, sorry,

I should say you are.

Richard Steel

unread,
Dec 11, 2011, 4:07:18 PM12/11/11
to
> > >a genius
>
> > You're only saying that because it's true.

> Yep, I agree, you are the most brilliant person on the planet.

Awwwww.

> > > By the way, STUPID, The New York Times is a newspaper. It is not a
> > > corporation.

> > The paper is owned by the New York Times Company, a conglomerate
> > which includes:

> Ohhhh, now it is the NEW YORK TIMES CORPORATION.

Yes.

Here's their webpage.....

http://www.nytco.com/

> So, basically, you lied, you got caught, you got shown to be a moron,
> and then you tried to change your story.

http://www.nytco.com/

> You are a Lentil.

http://www.nytco.com/

> Too.

http://www.nytco.com/

> Stupid.

http://www.nytco.com/

>To.

http://www.nytco.com/

> Post.

http://www.nytco.com/

Any other softballs that you'd like knocked out of the park?

Doug Bashford

unread,
Dec 13, 2011, 5:31:58 PM12/13/11
to

Re: #Los Angeles votes to end corporate personhood;
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011, Mr.B1ack wrote:
> Doug Bashford wrote:
> >Mr.B1ack wrote:
> >> "6338 Dead, 1481 since 1/20/09" wrote:



> >> >http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/06/los-angeles-votes-to-end-to-
> >> >corporate-personhood/
> >> >
> >> >Los Angeles votes to end corporate personhood
> >>
> >> So what's next, vote to ignore the 14th
> >> amendment so everybody can own slaves
> >> again ???
> >
> >What cartoon did THAT wild-eyed "logic" come from?
> >Oh I know!
> >FoxLimbaugh&Co!
>
> Never watch 'em.

Sure you do. They run your Republican Party.

......... Truth is stranger than fiction:
USA Today/Gallup poll - LIMBAUGH is the REPUBLICAN LEADER !
"Who speaks for the Republican party?"
RUSH LIMBAUGH... Both Repubs and Dems agree. Cheney is #2!
-- only 7% of America is Favorable to Republicans

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120806/limbaugh-gingrich-cheney-seen-speaking-gop.aspx

>
> You think you can just deep-six federal
> law at a whim ??? Think again.

You really should read the whole thread,
your words will seem less like kneejerk
convulsions.
0 new messages