Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2020 Democratic Challengers

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers

    Originally posted by The Sicatoka View Post
    Seems there'll be some serious sifting and winnowing to be done.
    Yes. 16 enter, one leaves.
    Cornell University
    National Champion 1967, 1970
    ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
    Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

    Comment


    • Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers

      Originally posted by E.J. Smith View Post
      You lose me, and your argument, when you have to throw in the anything and the some thing. Utterly ludicrous. Are you going to tell us next that corporations should be allowed to vote in elections. People can vote in elections, corporations are people, should every corporation have a vote?

      Plus "BUT THE MONEYEEZ" nice ham handed false equivalency - and Republicans wonder why anyone with a brain thinks they're morons.
      Oh for crying out loud. Who said anything about voting? So you only get free speech if you also have the right to vote, and vice versa?

      Corporations spend millions trying to entice you to buy boner pills and light beer. Why is it that people only seem to get worked up when the content of the speech turns political?

      Isn't that kind of the whole point of free speech? It doesn't matter who is speaking or what they are saying?
      Last edited by SJHovey; 11-13-2017, 01:20 PM.
      That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

      Comment


      • Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers

        Originally posted by The Sicatoka View Post
        Like I posited a scenario in the taxes thread, if you want to take away speech right of a corporation, that's fundamental, and in that case I'd argue the tax code should be set up that corporations would no longer be taxable either.
        Wait what?

        Comment


        • Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers

          Originally posted by The Sicatoka View Post
          Like I posited a scenario in the taxes thread, if you want to take away speech right of a corporation, that's fundamental, and in that case I'd argue the tax code should be set up that corporations would no longer be taxable either.
          Wait what?

          Comment


          • Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers

            Originally posted by Kepler View Post
            Yes. 16 enter, one leaves.
            Pay. Per. View.
            Pay. Per. View.
            Pay. Per. View.
            The preceding post may contain trigger words and is not safe-space approved. <-- Virtue signaling.

            North Dakota Hockey:

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Rover View Post
              Cuomo is around 60? maybe. Believe Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown is in his early 60's. Booker and Gillenbrand might still be in their 40's.

              Mind you, Trump will be 74 next time around.
              No thit. The White House has, with few exceptions, been an old folks home.
              CCT '77 & '78
              4 kids
              5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
              1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

              ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
              - Benjamin Franklin

              Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

              I want to live forever. So far, so good.

              Comment


              • Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers

                Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                Corporations spend millions trying to entice you to buy boner pills and light beer. Why is it that people only seem to get worked up when the content of the speech turns political?
                Do you really not see the difference? And since when do donations = speech?

                Comment


                • Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers

                  John Smith is running for mayor of Anytown, USA.
                  John Smith has more money for campaign signs than his opponent.
                  John Smith buys up the only two billboards in town for his campaign signs.

                  Is that free speech?
                  Is the issue "more money" or "corporation"?
                  The preceding post may contain trigger words and is not safe-space approved. <-- Virtue signaling.

                  North Dakota Hockey:

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers

                    Originally posted by trixR4kids View Post
                    Do you really not see the difference? And since when do donations = speech?
                    If a corporation, or a human being, wants to say "buy this light beer" or "vote for this candidate" there is no difference in my opinion. Both the corporation and the individual should be free to utter both statements, if we want to accept free speech as something to protect in this country.

                    People complain that corporations have and spend so much money on campaign ads and donations, and that somehow that is a legitimate reason for restricting that speech. But why? We don't restrict the speech of Bill Gates compared with you and me, just because he has billions to spend.

                    With respect to your question as to why donations = speech, I think the logical argument is that if a person is limited in the amount they can spend for political advertising, or light beer ads even, then the quantity of a persons speech is restricted, and even the quality because you don't have the same opportunity to discuss as wide a variety of issues relating to the subject.
                    That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                    Comment


                    • Royal Rumble or Hell In The Cell?
                      Facebook: bcowles920 Instagram: missthundercat01
                      "One word frees us from the weight and pain of this life. That word is love."- Socrates
                      Patreon for exclusive writing content
                      Adventures With Amber Marie

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers

                        Originally posted by ShirtlessBob View Post
                        Royal Rumble or Hell In The Cell?
                        Can we take Kep's 16 down to 8 via Royal Rumble and then change format?
                        The preceding post may contain trigger words and is not safe-space approved. <-- Virtue signaling.

                        North Dakota Hockey:

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                          If a corporation, or a human being, wants to say "buy this light beer" or "vote for this candidate" there is no difference in my opinion. Both the corporation and the individual should be free to utter both statements, if we want to accept free speech as something to protect in this country.

                          People complain that corporations have and spend so much money on campaign ads and donations, and that somehow that is a legitimate reason for restricting that speech. But why? We don't restrict the speech of Bill Gates compared with you and me, just because he has billions to spend.

                          With respect to your question as to why donations = speech, I think the logical argument is that if a person is limited in the amount they can spend for political advertising, or light beer ads even, then the quantity of a persons speech is restricted, and even the quality because you don't have the same opportunity to discuss as wide a variety of issues relating to the subject.
                          So you’re equating advertising and campaign donations with speech which is dubious at best.

                          As for why campaign donations should be restricted, people are supposed to have one vote and be on a level playing field in terms of the political process. Not the rich guy/corporation just buys all the political power until we enter a system of feudalism where dopamine is injected into our veins so that we can work for them 24/7.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers

                            Can a corporation go to jail?
                            "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
                            -aparch

                            "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
                            -INCH

                            Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
                            -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers

                              Originally posted by trixR4kids View Post
                              So you’re equating advertising and campaign donations with speech which is dubious at best.

                              As for why campaign donations should be restricted, people are supposed to have one vote and be on a level playing field in terms of the political process. Not the rich guy/corporation just buys all the political power until we enter a system of feudalism where dopamine is injected into our veins so that we can work for them 24/7.
                              Sorry. The measure of your right to free speech is not measured by your bank account.

                              Do you know why corporations and rich people spend all of their cash trying to buy political party? Because it works. The 1% have the power because the 99% are morons.
                              That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers

                                Originally posted by Handyman View Post
                                Can a corporation go to jail?
                                Of course not. Why not ask if a corporation can ride a horse. Both questions are equally relevant to the issue of free speech.
                                That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X