Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2016 - 08:24am PT
|
Try lining it with Tin Foil
wiener cannot penetrate Tin
|
|
nature
climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2016 - 08:29am PT
|
the problem is with Tin Foil is that most people are using Aluminum Foil instead. Looks the same. Doesn't protect, however.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2016 - 08:30am PT
|
nailed it
it's gotta be Tin
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2016 - 08:45am PT
|
Tin won't do sh!t.
And you call yerselves scientists.
Eternal Fail!!!
It will go right thru yer eyeballs, up yer nose and out yer azz ........
|
|
Crimpergirl
Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2016 - 12:09pm PT
|
Good question Warbler - (what does a pillow on the head accomplish?)
For me, it's just comfort and a higher degree of snuggliness (new word alert!). I think it feels like I've burrowed into the bed a bit more. Seems bizarre when writing it, but it's nice when doing it!
Hope that helps -
|
|
John Duffield
Mountain climber
New York
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2016 - 12:44pm PT
|
Well, I had to try it the other night, to see. I felt kind of suffocating, like last week when I was launched headfirst into 3 feet of powder.
Then, I put two pillows, one North of the nose and one South and that was ok.
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2016 - 01:41pm PT
|
I repeat, yet again, my challenge to anyone criticizing the majority opinion in Citizens United to reconcile their criticism with the holding of the Warren Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, holding that the New York Times Company (that metaphysical entity) had its freedom of the press infringed by the libel laws of the state of Alabama. John, I'm curious by what I think you're suggesting. Are you saying that the Court granted freedom of the press to the N.Y. Times was somehow a characterization of an entity or corporation as an individual?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2016 - 01:50pm PT
|
I'm not saying the holding treated the plaintiff as an individual. I'm saying that the holding granted First Amendment rights to a corporation (viz. the New York Times Co.) This contradicts critics' claims that the majority holding in Citizens United, granting First Amendment rights to the plaintiff over 40 years after New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, was in any way novel or a perversion of existing First Amendment jurisprudence.
John
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2016 - 02:22pm PT
|
Citizens United is similar to gun rights in my opinion. There are limits and the debate is over what those limits are. Claiming it's all contained in the text of the constitution is a cop out or mental laziness.
You have the right to guns. You don't have the rights to a nuclear bomb. What's an acceptable limit? That's the question. Personally I'm fine with most types of guns as long as people have passed background checks, and taken training for handguns and high capacity weapons. And limits on what you can have where. A fully automatic machine gun is fine on my rural property but not in a city.
You have the right to free speech but you can't say high jack on an airliner. I agree Corporations have free speech. But I don't agree they automatically get all the rights of a person. Free speech shouldn't include anonymous unlimited buying of politicians by foreign corporations or governments. Unless the law Specifally says that, then the justices should say we have to allow it but the law should be changed asap.
The fact that 4 or 5 justices see things differently shows the law is not clear cut but open to interpretation as the framers intended.
Maybe Scalia was a legal giant at communicating what he wanted and laying out justifications for other people that also need to believe the way he does. But to me I see twisted, illogical reasoning and I'm not impressed. That along with his bigoted remarks gives me little reason to respect him. It's sad that he died because he was loved and had family. But as far as I'm concerned the law and most of the country are better off without him on the court.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2016 - 02:23pm PT
|
John is too bogged down in the details to see what's going on.
John, you are correct, It's Not just "Citizens United" that has caused the problems we are facing
we don't really care about the details of this or that decision
all that matters is what the combined laws do
Which is:
Allow any amount of dollars to go to political campaigns from undisclosed donors.
We don't care if it was all about the Hillary Movie or not
all we care about is stopping the destruction of our Democracy by big money donors wanting favors
Scalia's other Worst decision ever!
Gore vs. Bush
we wouldn't even be talking about Citizens United and the damage it's done if they didn't step in and appoint Bush President before the votes were counted
A purely partisan decision that has been discredited a million times over
Bad judgment = Bad Judge
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2016 - 03:11pm PT
|
I'm not saying the holding treated the plaintiff as an individual. I'm saying that the holding granted First Amendment rights to a corporation (viz. the New York Times Co.) This contradicts critics' claims that the majority holding in Citizens United, granting First Amendment rights to the plaintiff over 40 years after New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, was in any way novel or a perversion of existing First Amendment jurisprudence. I think there's substantial disagreement with what you're contending. First, the 1st Amendment prevents Congress from making any laws "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." It does not describe individuals, or individuals reporting the press. It describes the press as an entity. In contrast, with Citizen's United, while I understand the well recognized priniciple that political speech is afforded particular importance, we are not talking about individual political speech. We are really talking about is the creation of a separate entity to receive money for the purpose of purchasing media to spread political speech of that entity. In other words, you have individuals delegating their political speech to a corporation by making financial contributions to that corporation. I don't see anything in either the 1st Amendment or in Sullivan that establishes a precedent for that right.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2016 - 04:44pm PT
|
Fat Dad, how would you answer my argument that the distinction you make says that a corporation that owns a media outlet has freedom to say what it wants, but a corporation that rents a media outlet does not?
In answer to those who would interpolate what the founders would argue, I rather doubt they were worried about "buying" an election by proliferation of a message. I suspect they would be much more concerned about buying votes through generosity with other peoples' money, and would be appalled at the extent to which both parties, but particularly the Democrats, engage in doing so.
John
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2016 - 05:37pm PT
|
John (call me Steve please),
I understand your point but feel that the two entities are so different as to be readily distinguished. The 1st Amendment discusses the rights guaranteed to the "press", and the fact that the press is organized into a corporation does not alter those rights. It did not make similar guarantees to political action committees. It extended those rights to individuals (whether alone or assembled) and the press. No one has argued that the New York Times is a person for purposes of determining its 1st Amendment rights. They did make that argument in Citizen's United.
|
|
Jorroh
climber
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2016 - 07:25pm PT
|
" rather doubt they were worried about "buying" an election by proliferation of a message"
Well i don't have the inside track on discerning the mindset of a bunch of genocidal slave owners (were they still burning witches then?...can't remember) I'll leave that to you John.
But I do know that the proliferation of "message" is really almost beside the point. While politicians may or may not get any value out of political messaging, the givers of cash (at least those who give big chunks of it) are most certainly getting value for money (as study after study has shown) by getting the legislation and policies that they want, regardless of the wishes of ordinary voters.
I'd have thought that anyone would be concerned about what that says about the state of our democracy.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2016 - 07:59pm PT
|
It's interesting that this election is so heavily influenced by the concept that corporate money has undo influence in politics when the two leading candidates aren't accepting corporate money. Did we just imagine it? Or were we just too lazy to try?
|
|
Don Paul
Big Wall climber
Denver CO
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2016 - 08:32pm PT
|
the problem is with Tin Foil is that most people are using Aluminum Foil instead
genius!
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2016 - 12:55am PT
|
For that matter, how would you distinguish New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), from the dissent's contention that corporations have no First Amendment rights? Or is it just no freedom of speech, but they have freedom of the press?
I have a bit of a problem with the attempt to broadly correlate / conjoin specific fourth estate issues with the broad notion of corporations being accorded the rights of individuals.
|
|
Don Paul
Big Wall climber
Denver CO
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2016 - 06:25am PT
|
The first amendment protects both freedom of speech and association, and a corporation is an association, but you have to take an extra step to find that the first amendment protects the freedom of speech OF associations. The original idea of corporate personhood was so that the court would have a basis for "personal" jurisdiction over them. The early corporations were sailing ships, then railroads, and corporate personhood was intended to provide a way of applying existing laws to them. It was a convenient fiction that produced a simple result, that the laws apply equally to corporations and people. There was never any idea that a corporation itself had constitutional rights. People have the right to speak, and to form associations. Now, associations (corporations) appear to have rights of their own. They could have said that a corporation is a mass of individuals, so it represents the rights of everyone in it, or of the stockholders, but that's not what the court said. Another good thing to know about corporations is that they cannot act independently of their agents. Whatever a corporation does, there is always some human being involved in every step. Citizens United is a strange case that screws up a very basic legal concept.
|
|
Tom
Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2016 - 06:53am PT
|
Once upon a time, men created some special machines. The machines served the men, making the men's lives easier. Over time, the men made the machines more sophisticated, more powerful, and able to do more things.
Then, one day, the machines were given too much power, and the machines took over. The machines ran amok, wreaking havoc and causing misery for the men. The machines no longer worked for the benefit of the men. The machines only worked to make themselves more powerful, so that they could completely control the men. The machines learned how to reproduce themselves, and the number of uncontrollable machines grew.
By the time the men realized what was happening, it was too late. They had given the machines too much power, and now the machines could not be stopped. The men were now subservient to the machines, and there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Many men who tried to stop the machines were destroyed.
The only way to stop the machines was to use a time machine to send a man back to the past, and have him prevent the machines from becoming too powerful.
But, there is no such thing as a time machine. Nobody was able to go back in time. And nobody was able to prevent the machines from taking over.
The machines won, and the men lost.
THE END
APPENDIX
The men called their machines CORPORATIONS.
And the day the machines were given too much power came to be known as: CITIZENS UNITED DAY
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 19, 2016 - 07:54am PT
|
This discussion reminds me that I finally need to get around to reading CU.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!