Jump to content

DMC

Members
  • Content count

    4,610
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About DMC

  • Rank
    Pithy Witticism

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

3,334 profile views
  1. This is all too depressing to respond to. Didn't read anything after Jumpstreet. Sad.
  2. Challenge accepted! Jonah Hill is a piece of shit actor that's bases for any success is contingent upon how fat he is in relation to Rogen.
  3. Rogen has no ball. Him and Hill and Franco. Buncha wannabe-non-frat-boy-douchebags. I get it, Rogen and Goldberg weren't told they were cool in college. Their comedies are all about rectifying that fact. That's pathetic artistic license. ETA: My friend that wanted to write seriously for film: Went to film school and is now in the industry. As opposed to - Seth Rogen wants to get into film: Hahaha, fart. I smoke weed so the kids will that's cool. Fuck Seth Rogen.
  4. Lame. Seth Rogan should be erased as opposed to copied.
  5. Was that your fake ID name?
  6. DMC

    Professional Wrestling: Smark I

    Just saw this. Criticize Nash all you want, but dude is fucking funny:
  7. DMC

    Professional Wrestling: Smark I

    I'm in Pitt as well, and yeah, I wouldn't go for free either.
  8. DMC

    Professional Wrestling: Smark I

    So who's hyped for EXTREME RULES?!? ....Bueller?
  9. DMC

    U.S. Politics- SCOTUS 2: The Election Strikes Back

    Well, that's why it's important to differentiate between a perceived spike among the participants in this thread and a perceived spike in actual reality.
  10. DMC

    U.S. Politics- SCOTUS 2: The Election Strikes Back

    I this this condition (a marked increase in violent actions) is an unfounded assumption. There's no reason to suspect this would happen. For a US-to-US comparison - I think there are logical objections to hate crime statutes. But in actuality, only about six thousand incidents are prosecuted as such per year. Considering the multitude of court systems in this country it's very difficult to see that's onerous in terms of case load. For a non-US comparison, consider compulsory voting. Very rarely is this actually prosecuted in countries with it on the books. It's the spirit of the law that is important. Which would be the same case here - thanks to the wonders of the internet, the social (and, yes, sometimes violent) repercussions to such speech would be far more punitive than any nominal penalties a state statute would provide for.
  11. DMC

    U.S. Politics- SCOTUS 2: The Election Strikes Back

    At least in my understanding of the fighting words doctrine it's you that doesn't understand the repercussions on the courts if racial slurs are added. The doctrine does not justify violent actions - that's kind of contradicts its spirit in general. What it does is say certain speech is not protected. Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire: States can use their police power to regulate speech that invokes violence - that is almost the inverse of the state neglecting its police power by condoning violence against speech.
  12. DMC

    U.S. Politics- SCOTUS 2: The Election Strikes Back

    This is one of your funny funny jokes, right?
  13. DMC

    U.S. Politics- SCOTUS 2: The Election Strikes Back

    Sure, granted, but killing babies - especially in self defense - that's the definition of free(hat)dom. And how:
×