You (all) lie!

[Penske_Account]

In honour of the political quote of 2009.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Penske_Account

In honour of the political quote of 2009.

I feel this title slights those socks that never post their own thoughts but instead simply copy the thoughts (or blogs) of others. I would argue that Ty has never lied on this board, but instead he unknowingly copies the lies of others.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Penske_Account

In honour of the political quote of 2009.

For the very same reason I would have gone with "Critical habitat of the post hoc."

[PresentTense Pirate Penske]

On the Food board today, as many may be aware (although having said that I am not really sure how many crossover posters we really have), there was a discussion of things that grow in CA, and it was implicitly asserted that everything grows there.........and apparently as related to small business failures that is a true statement........

Small-business bankruptcies rise 81% in California

Well done Arnold and the Dems of CA. Way to make what was once the land of promise one of the most business unfriendly states in the nation.....world. Of course the politicians who lie will blame it on the larger economy........but anyone who has ever had the unpleasure to do business there knows that the problem transcends the Great Recession. No offence.

[PresentTense Pirate Penske]

Tora Bora constitutes one of the greatest military blunders in recent U.S. history.

The tax cuts notwithstanding, I truly believe Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld should be drawn and quartered in the public square for the failure outlined in that article, assuming that it is true. I hope after healthcare reform is done, Obama has the cojones to pursue a process that could yield this result.

No offence.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by PresentTense Pirate Penske

Tora Bora constitutes one of the greatest military blunders in recent U.S. history.

The tax cuts notwithstanding, I truly believe Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld should be drawn and quartered in the public square for the failure outlined in that article, assuming that it is true. I hope after healthcare reform is done, Obama has the cojones to pursue a process that could yield this result.

No offence.

It sounds like a real error, but I don't get how it's a huge military blunder. It's not like bin Laden has done that much since then.

[PresentTense Pirate Penske]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It sounds like a real error, but I don't get how it's a huge military blunder. It's not like bin Laden has done that much since then.

It was a blunder in how we deployed/utilised (underdeployed/misutilised?) our military, for what, ultimately, is a military action that continues to today, no?

eta: merde! I whiffed, oui?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally Posted by Penske_Account

In honour of the political quote of 2009.

I thought he retired?

Damn.

S_A_M

[PresentTense Pirate Penske]

Originally Posted by Secret_Agent_Man

I thought he retired?

Damn.

S_A_M

You missed him [sniff]. admit it.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Secret_Agent_Man

I thought he retired?

Damn.

S_A_M

Hi!

[LessinSF]

A response to the corps. are state-entities and can be restricted far better than I can write.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

A response to the corps. are state-entities and can be restricted far better than I can write.

I see real merit in the first argument, even if it is of the nature that "this can't be right because then X would also be right"; I see much less in the second; and think the third sounds like something Hank comes up with when he's cornered and lost an argument.

The lesson: stop when you're ahead.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

A response to the corps. are state-entities and can be restricted far better than I can write.

The first one is not terribly persuasive, given a separate provision regarding freedom of the press.

The second one is somewhat persuasive, but I'd have to think about whether I'm worried about searches of corporations. The takings point doesn't work so well, however, because corporate property is owned by shareholders, who ultimately are individuals.

The third one is something of a silly slippery slope, because LLCs and alternative forms of corporations presumably *should* be treated the same as a corporation.

Anyway, interesting but not overwhelmingly persuasive.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

The first one is not terribly persuasive, given a separate provision regarding freedom of the press.

But press is in the amendment, just like speech, so why can't congress abridge corporate press?

Further, what is press? CBS, bloggers, a corp.'s monthly newsletter, or a corp.'s anti-Hillary movie?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

A response to the corps. are state-entities and can be restricted far better than I can write.

You do yourself an injustice. You could write something better than this at the tail-end of a three-day bender.

I. Media Corporations are “State-Created Entities” Too.

The first problem is that, like the “real people” argument, it applies to media corporations as well. On this view, the government would be free to censor the New York Times, Fox News, the Nation, National Review, and so on. Nearly every newspaper and political journal in the country is a corporation. If the Supreme Court accepted this view, it would have to overturn decisions like New York Times v. Sullivan and the Pentagon Papers case.

As others have pointed out, the First Amendment provides for freedom of the press. I've seen your response to that -- the suggestion that this right, too, could be limited to individuals. You either know that this is bullshit, or you are suggesting that the founders intended freedom of speech and freedom of the press to be exactly the same thing.

II. The Impact on Other Constitutional Rights.

A second issue is that this logic applies not only to corporate free speech rights, but to all other constitutional rights exercised through the use of corporate resources. If people using “state-created entities” don’t have free speech rights, they don’t have any other constitutional rights either. After all, the supposed power to define the rights of state-created entities isn’t limited to free speech rights. Thus, government would not be bound by the Fourth Amendment in searching corporate property (including employee offices). It could take corporate property for private use without paying compensation because the Fifth Amendment would no longer apply. It could forbid religious services on corporate property (including that owned by churches, most of which are after all nonprofit corporations). If the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment doesn’t apply to corporate property, neither does the Free Exercise Clause. And so on.

Yeah. So? Do corporations have a right against self-incrimination?

As for the possibility that corporations would not have a right to property, somehow I don't fear that very much. Nor do I think due process gets set aside.

III. Nearly Everyone and Everything is Probably a “State-Created Entity.”

This one descends into horseshit, and basically disproves the author's own points. For example, it notes that "virtually all other organizations are “state-created entities” as well. Universities, schools, charities, churches, political parties, partnerships, sole proprietorships, and many other private organizations all have official definitions under state and federal law. And all have special government-created privileges and obligations that don’t apply to other types of organizations."

Yep. That's right. They all have different privileges and obligations.


As for this:

Even individual citizens might be considered “state-created” entities under this logic. After all, the status of “citizen” is a government-created legal entitlement that carries various rights and privileges, many of which the government could alter by legislation, just as it can with those of corporations (e.g. — the right to receive Social Security benefits, which the Supreme Court has ruled can be altered by legislation any time Congress wants). In that sense, “citizens” are no less “state-created” entities than corporations are.

It is also true that "citizens" are a state-created concept. But, first, they have Constitutional status -- unlike corporations. And, second, the relevant distinction is between corporations and individuals, not corporations and citizens. I believe, for example, that things olike the right to counsel and the right to speak and assemble are extended to non-citizens.

So government could enact laws requiring citizens to limit their political speech in exactly the same ways in which corporate speech can be limited (or at least condition their continued status as citizens on obedience to the government’s censorship rules).