Are liberals becoming terrorists?

[NewGuy]

I rest my case.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
I rest my case.

Counselor, your case is dismissed as you have nothing to rest upon. You will reimberse the other parties for wasting their time, and you will do community service for wasting the courts time.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Counselor, your case is dismissed as you have nothing to rest upon. You will reimberse the other parties for wasting their time, and you will do community service for wasting the courts time.

The court is corrupt and will be impeached.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
The court is corrupt and will be impeached.

The impeachment proceedings are blocked, by failure to get a quorum. I can bog you down in legalistic maneuvers for months. i'm a trained professional.

 

[DKSuddeth]

thats when the majority of the populace revolt, destroy the corrupt government, and install a new one.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
thats when the majority of the populace revolt, destroy the corrupt government, and install a new one.

How would your new government differ from the current one? No corporations allowed?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
How would your new government differ from the current one? No corporations allowed?

of course they would be, they would just have their illegal constitutional rights to survive as an entity removed and be placed back on charter status.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
of course they would be, they would just have their illegal constitutional rights to survive as an entity removed and be placed back on charter status.

please elaborate.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
of course they would be, they would just have their illegal constitutional rights to survive as an entity removed and be placed back on charter status.

illegal constitutional rights to survive as an entity? Like I said dig beneath the surface of anything a lib says and you either get word salad or anger. Honey dijon please.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
please elaborate.

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/ftcr/co/co003712.php3

The First Amendment was created to protect individuals from oppression by the government, not to rescue telemarketers. Corporations only gained First Amendment rights in the courts during the last two decades. This must be reversed if large corporations are to be servants of society, not masters.

In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in two separate cases that corporations have a First Amendment right to speak through unlimited contributions to political parties (Buckley v. Valeo) and that commercial speech is protected under the First Amendment (Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Consumer Council).

Until America's bicentennial, corporations had no free speech right. After 1976, modern corporations gained title to the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, the Bill for Rights.

First National Bank of Boston's First Amendment right to speak through money, for example, stopped state limits on corporate spending for political referendums in 1978's decision in First National Bank of Boston v. Belloti. Supreme Court Justices White, Brennan and Marshall wrote in dissent: "The State need not let its own creation consume it."

That prophetic warning haunts us today because corporations have relied on new Bill of Rights protections during the last 20 years to shirk their accountability to society.

The Fourth Amendment allowed an electrical company to avoid federal inspections under the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1977's Marshall v. Barlow's Inc. The Fifth Amendment's double-jeopardy clause protected a textile corporation from a government retrial in a criminal antitrust action in 1976's United States v. Marshall Linen Supply Company.

Most troubling for the federal "do not call" list are Supreme Court rulings establishing that corporations' commercial speech does not require the consent of the listener. These include 1980's Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York and 1983's Bolger v. Youngs Drug Product Corp. -- which are used to justify junk faxing and door-to-door solicitations.

The legal rulings advancing corporations' constitutional rights during the last two decades were no accident, but a conscious strategy by big business to create historically unprecedented cultural privileges for large corporations.

The strategy was hatched in a "confidential memo" sent to the leadership of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 1971 by a corporate lawyer named Lewis F. Powell Jr. At the time, Powell represented corporate titans like Phillip Morris, but later in 1971 President Nixon appointed him to the U.S. Supreme Court, where he authored many of the rulings giving corporations Bill of
Rights protections.

 

[freeandfun1]

thank you.

 

[DKSuddeth]

welcome

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/ftcr/co/co003712.php3

The First Amendment was created to protect individuals from oppression by the government, not to rescue telemarketers. Corporations only gained First Amendment rights in the courts during the last two decades. This must be reversed if large corporations are to be servants of society, not masters.

In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in two separate cases that corporations have a First Amendment right to speak through unlimited contributions to political parties (Buckley v. Valeo) and that commercial speech is protected under the First Amendment (Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Consumer Council).

Until America's bicentennial, corporations had no free speech right. After 1976, modern corporations gained title to the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, the Bill for Rights.

First National Bank of Boston's First Amendment right to speak through money, for example, stopped state limits on corporate spending for political referendums in 1978's decision in First National Bank of Boston v. Belloti. Supreme Court Justices White, Brennan and Marshall wrote in dissent: "The State need not let its own creation consume it."

That prophetic warning haunts us today because corporations have relied on new Bill of Rights protections during the last 20 years to shirk their accountability to society.

The Fourth Amendment allowed an electrical company to avoid federal inspections under the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1977's Marshall v. Barlow's Inc. The Fifth Amendment's double-jeopardy clause protected a textile corporation from a government retrial in a criminal antitrust action in 1976's United States v. Marshall Linen Supply Company.

Most troubling for the federal "do not call" list are Supreme Court rulings establishing that corporations' commercial speech does not require the consent of the listener. These include 1980's Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York and 1983's Bolger v. Youngs Drug Product Corp. -- which are used to justify junk faxing and door-to-door solicitations.

The legal rulings advancing corporations' constitutional rights during the last two decades were no accident, but a conscious strategy by big business to create historically unprecedented cultural privileges for large corporations.

The strategy was hatched in a "confidential memo" sent to the leadership of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 1971 by a corporate lawyer named Lewis F. Powell Jr. At the time, Powell represented corporate titans like Phillip Morris, but later in 1971 President Nixon appointed him to the U.S. Supreme Court, where he authored many of the rulings giving corporations Bill of
Rights protections.

Consent of the listener? That's total crap. Sounds like you just have campaign finance reform issues. These "problems" can be addressed without revolution.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
very simplistic view and a dishonest view.

(I see the question mark, but you and me both know it is a rhetorical question).

It is typical of the left to attack ourselves instead of the real enemies of the country. They are such a self loathing bunch!

Well, now that you mention it, the greatest threat to the Republic is now sitting in the Oval Office.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Well, now that you mention it, the greatest threat to the Republic is now sitting in the Oval Office.

Wrong Bully, the most serious threat to the Republic are those that are ignoring the present opportunities to effect history without thought or conscience. We are living in paradigm times and the partisanship on both sides is deplorable.