User

He has more disdain here than he does for a criminal thug in Canada running the streets armed for violence, stabbing people, robbing them, and maybe killing them...

This continues to be your problem. You claim to have "explicitly" conceded, but in reality you prefaced it with saying you were throwing my "buffoonish nitpicking back in my face, an "IF" qualifier, italics, and a laughing emoji. No, I did not take that seriously at all, I still don't. When you clear up that you are clearly not just conceding, but admitting that what you did was wrong, when you spent days trying to contrive the timeline to literally support a 3 hour narrative to the lengths you did... then we can move on. I was honestly asking the question, the point was obvious, that Trump is as guilty for causing what happened on January 6th as Pelosi and other Democrats like our sitting VP were for causing the summers long violence around the BLM protests.

The issue is not my memory. You cannot articulate anything here.

How was it underhanded? How was it solely based on their politics? Where is the corruption? You just ask the questions to imply something you can't actually articulate. It is dishonest at best.

How am I opposing equality?

To think you are trying to impugn people who have dedicated much of their lives to the law and who were fully vetted by the Senate and public confirmation hearings like this...

You prefaced that with an "IF" qualifier and followed it up with a laughing emoji. No, you did not explicitly concede at all. Your continued dishonesty is evident by your saying that was "explicit" when you clearly conditioned it on an "IF" qualifier and then laughed. I am not convinced you honestly answered, just threw that out there to make a point...

Sure… other than all the classified documents he had stashed all over his properties.

Yes, repeatedly throughout this discussion, he claimed negotiations were the "only" way out.

He keeps pushing this lie. He has ran away from several other threads now where he was repeatedly called out for this. So? Those are not bribes.

Nowhere did this ruling change anything regarding individuals voting.

Wrong. In regards to speech, media corporations had no restrictions before Citizens United. And again... the protections here were in regards to Speech, that just because people get together in a corporation, doesn't mean the lose their rights to freedom of speech. So what if they are good at expanding wealth? A savvy individual can be good at expanding their wealth too, that doesn't mean they lose their freedom of speech. Corporations are not getting votes... the people in them can vote. So... if your argument is about the size of the megaphone, that has nothing to do with corporations, as again, people can form Unions or clubs, or any other kind of organization to combine their resources to push influence for the things they support. It appears you have a problem with the basic concepts of freedom of speech now. Sure, limited rights around the concepts of how corporations function as a corporation... doesn't change the concept of freedom of speech though.

Your use of scripture is as abysmal as your understanding of this conflict between Israel and Hamas.

And, yet again, you flip-flop. Are you an entirely different person all of a sudden because your entire post is contradictory to everything you have been saying so far.

There are many differences between me and a Grandma. So what? That wasn't the point of discussion. If you and your family get together to accumulate wealth, and combine your speech to support a cause, you have more power and influence than some single homeless guy. So what? Freedom of speech != Speech equity. Just like folks get together to join a union for more power and influence, that is more than any individual has. So, now you oppose free speech for people in a Union? What you think is a huge problem or not, was not any point here. What is Constitutional and that people in a corporation having freedom of speech doesn't somehow make that corporation a person was the point.

LOL, that is all speculation, not evidence. "could", "possible", "many centuries" Give me a break with this doomsday porn. Not interested in your fetishes.

I don't have to google anything. Unlike you, I have an educated understanding of this subject. The claim I responded to was that corporations are people, and you posted what should essentially be considered an Op/Ed talking about the concept of corporate personhood, which isn't stated in the ruling at all. The ruling centered entirely on the concept of free speech, which doesn't somehow disappear just because people are in a corporation. That doesn't make a corporation a person or give them some kind of personhood. Its no different than if a bunch of people join a union and combine their resources to promote political speech, or a club, or any kind of association. The Supreme Court pointed out the obvious contradictions because there is corporate media... are you now going to argue that there is no freedom of the press or freedom of speech that applies to any kind of incorporated media? Of course not. Come on back when you can do more than post links to other peoples opinions.

Too late for what? The doom porn you are pushing is anything but scientific.

The Supreme Court never said corporations are people, nor did they prioritize the right to make machine guns above the rights of women. Are there any other brainless talking points you want to parrot from your local liberal coffee club meeting?

It's not me hung up on this; it's you. You never "clarified" anything. You double and triple downed on the literal meaning of "nothing" for 3 hours. Again, you tried to move the timeline to an absurd point. Even now, you still can't be honest about what you were doing here. You did not attempt to clarify. See above. You are just lying more now. Not really, I asked you over and over and over again and you kept ignoring it.

Exactly. Russia Takes Crimea Russia Starts Proxy War in Donbas Russia Invades Ukraine These guys want Ukraine to negotiate peace with Russia, as if that means there will actually be peace. Meanwhile, Russia takes the time for negotiations or "peace" to push more proxy wars or prepare for another invasion for whatever excuse they dream up next.

Not disingenuous at all. Hamas stays in power while you instead argue for removing Iranian leadership from power. Hamas keeps killing Israelis while you go off on this pipe dream of yours, leveling Iran instead. Again, Hamas stays in power and keeps killing Israelis. Everything you propose leaves Hamas in power to keep killing Israelis. You don't get to act like this isn't what you want.

Biden is. He is above the law because he is too old.

Your claim was that negotiation was the only way. My only point was that it wasn't. But yes... Russia is trying to conquer Ukraine or, allegedly now, concede to negotiate outrageous terms in their favor. The options are... you surrender to them or you fight them. You support effective surrender.

So, you are not even willing to remove Hamas from power, but now you want to remove Iranian leadership from power instead? So... how exactly does that work without a lot of people dying? Yes, you do. Your plan leaves them in power. They keep killing Israelis.