Cornerville Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Picture of me in my office :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sen. John Blutarsky Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 what falstaff just said. but with better grammar and punctuation sorry about that, multi-tasking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 sorry about that, multi-tasking no need to be sorry for anything posted in this thread, for that matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theesir Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 No offense gracious mod, but if you wanna change the tone, go ahead but I think you're wrong. Part of the beauty of new media outlets is that there ar eno rules and there is nobody who is off limits. Clearly this comes with a dwonside but if we can call the President of our conutry retarded without so much as a bat of an eye I think I can call a fat person fat more a minute or two and have a chuckle. This is wrong on so many levels. First off, the fact that the overall intellect of the world seems to be declining, does not mean we all have a responsibility to become more stupid. You CAN make a choice to rise above what is around you instead of sinking into it. Second, Bush put himself out there in the public and any ridicule that comes his way is expected/deserved. This woman was hit by a car. Are you saying that if she didn't want to be ridiculed she should have NOT been hit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 oh man, leave it to the high-and-mighty crowd to ruin another thread. this one being an actually funny one to boot... fine, funs over. you guys win. this poor girl got a couple bruises and will be $1,000,000 richer for it. what a tragedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 This is wrong on so many levels. First off, the fact that the overall intellect of the world seems to be declining, does not mean we all have a responsibility to become more stupid. You CAN make a choice to rise above what is around you instead of sinking into it. Second, Bush put himself out there in the public and any ridicule that comes his way is expected/deserved. This woman was hit by a car. Are you saying that if she didn't want to be ridiculed she should have NOT been hit? no, im saying if she doesnt want to be ridiculed she should put down the twinkies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_soul-dier Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Wow, you guys have a great sense of humor! Ever considered punching up scripts with that wit? whats your deal man...lighten up...this woman the mother of your children or something? calm downnnnnnn... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE GASH STATION Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 whats your deal man...lighten up...this woman the mother of your children or something? calm downnnnnnn... Hes not a member Grandma..hes a caddy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
generaLee83 Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Funny that none of these posters have the balls to post their own pic....... If this thread bothers you then why don't you just stop reading it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sen. John Blutarsky Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 This is wrong on so many levels. First off, the fact that the overall intellect of the world seems to be declining, does not mean we all have a responsibility to become more stupid. You CAN make a choice to rise above what is around you instead of sinking into it. Second, Bush put himself out there in the public and any ridicule that comes his way is expected/deserved. This woman was hit by a car. Are you saying that if she didn't want to be ridiculed she should have NOT been hit? No, what I'm saying is that if we don't even feel the need to hold someone like the President in any kind of esteem why should a regualr person deserve any more? For many years whether you felt the President was right or wrong there some manner of decorum in which you spoke about him. That is now entirely gone. Yes, it may be in poor taste to tease this particular person regarding her weight in (presumably) her absence. However, on the scale of things in the world which show a lack of proper decorum and poor taste this ranks pretty low on the list. The fact that the modern day water cooler conversations happen in an different medium don't make them any more or less "bad" than they were before. And as with all conversations, if you don't like it, don't participate. However, attempting to legislate some sort of morality on people's thoughts is pointless and scary. A good world is a world where there are no sacred cows and everyone is open to scrutiny. What makes it better is if everyone learns to take the worls with a grain of salt and have a laugh once in awhile rather than to take such tremendous offense to everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
generaLee83 Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 marshawn didnt mean to hit her, he saw her and just instinctively ran into the back of her thinking it was Brad Butler. hahahahahah Nice!!! Keep 'em coming. And screw everyone else who is getting offended by a fun little internet thread, most folks just love the first amendment right up until someone else sais something that they disagree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 No, what I'm saying is that if we don't even feel the need to hold someone like the President in any kind of esteem why should a regualr person deserve any more? For many years whether you felt the President was right or wrong there some manner of decorum in which you spoke about him. That is now entirely gone. Yes, it may be in poor taste to tease this particular person regarding her weight in (presumably) her absence. However, on the scale of things in the world which show a lack of proper decorum and poor taste this ranks pretty low on the list. The fact that the modern day water cooler conversations happen in an different medium don't make them any more or less "bad" than they were before. And as with all conversations, if you don't like it, don't participate. However, attempting to legislate some sort of morality on people's thoughts is pointless and scary. A good world is a world where there are no sacred cows and everyone is open to scrutiny. What makes it better is if everyone learns to take the worls with a grain of salt and have a laugh once in awhile rather than to take such tremendous offense to everything. You're a complete moron if you're equating criticizing an ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIAL with anonymous personal attacks on a private citizen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sen. John Blutarsky Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 You're a complete moron if you're equating criticizing an ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIAL with anonymous personal attacks on a private citizen. A private citizen who became a public figure the moment her lawyer made public comment trying to elicit public sympathy. The steps to the soap box are on your left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEAST MODE BABY! Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 This is wrong on so many levels (I have a higher moral authority). First off, the fact that the overall intellect of the world seems to be declining (I seem to be getting smarter than everyone else), does not mean we all have a responsibility to become more stupid. You CAN make a choice to rise above what is around you instead of sinking into it (I am not hoi palloi. Become like me). Second, Bush put himself out there in the public and any ridicule that comes his way is expected/deserved (It's ok to call Bush a retard if you rationalize it like I do). This woman was hit by a car (George Bush ok target. Big women not ok target). Are you saying that if she didn't want to be ridiculed she should have NOT been hit? Fixed with a bit of verite serum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 A private citizen who became a public figure the moment her lawyer made public comment trying to elicit public sympathy. The steps to the soap box are on your left. She's still not a public figure genius! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theesir Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 hahahahahah Nice!!! Keep 'em coming. And screw everyone else who is getting offended by a fun little internet thread, most folks just love the first amendment right up until someone else sais something that they disagree with. I should start a thread making fun of idiots like you that think the First Amendment has ANYTHING to do with private speech. The 1st Amendment places restriction on the GOVERNMENT in its attempts to block speech. Idiots yell "free speech!", "FREE SPEECH!" whenever they want to say something stupid out loud and confuse the people pointing out their stupidity with people (or the government) trying to stop them from saying it. Feel free to continue making an ass of yourself. I wouldn't want to infringe on your "rights". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Isn't that Mandy Moore? Oh, hi there, SilverNRed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sen. John Blutarsky Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 She's still not a public figure genius! I'm not even going to delve into the logic where it says it's ok to have absolutley no standards for how you speak about people who are supposed to have some level of respect even while in disagreement. That's an entry for another day. However, once your lawyer, who is hired by you, makes public comment regarding your case and attempts to win public support by attempting to point out out nice and I think the word was "sweet" you are, your lawyer has made you a public figure who is open to ridicule to question just how "sweet" a person you are. If she didn't want that she have have told her lawyer to keep his mouth shut. His comments weren't necessary, nor did they advance his case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 I'm not even going to delve into the logic where it says it's ok to have absolutley no standards for how you speak about people who are supposed to have some level of respect even while in disagreement. That's an entry for another day. However, once your lawyer, who is hired by you, makes public comment regarding your case and attempts to win public support by attempting to point out out nice and I think the word was "sweet" you are, your lawyer has made you a public figure who is open to ridicule to question just how "sweet" a person you are. If she didn't want that she have have told her lawyer to keep his mouth shut. His comments weren't necessary, nor did they advance his case. Listen up stupid: PUBLIC FIGURE - A term usually used in the context of libel and defamation actions where the standards of proof are higher if the party claiming defamation is a public figure and therefore has to prove defamatory statements were made with actual malice. Harte-Hanks Communications v. Connaughton (1989) 491 U.S. 657, 666-668. The "public figure" issue is not cut and dried. To begin with, a fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate a person to public figure status, Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 745, and, as to those who are not pervasively involved in public affairs, they must have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved" to be considered a "limited purpose" public figure. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 345. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theesir Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Listen up stupid: PUBLIC FIGURE - A term usually used in the context of libel and defamation actions where the standards of proof are higher if the party claiming defamation is a public figure and therefore has to prove defamatory statements were made with actual malice. Harte-Hanks Communications v. Connaughton (1989) 491 U.S. 657, 666-668. The "public figure" issue is not cut and dried. To begin with, a fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate a person to public figure status, Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 745, and, as to those who are not pervasively involved in public affairs, they must have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved" to be considered a "limited purpose" public figure. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 345. Why bother??? Its his RIGHT to continue to make an ass of himself. God bless America. Through her history 100s of thousands have died for the rights of idiots to say whatever they want no matter how stupid it makes them seem... USA! USA! USA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts