Fact is fact, Tea Partiers are extremists

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'm not partisan, I equally disdain political parties because they're divisive political machines used by lobbyists and corporate America.

then you must loathe Thomas Jefferson?

You know how the GOP plays dirty politics? So did Thomas Jefferson back in his day. John Adams wanted to work with Jefferson and the Congress but like todays Republicans, all they cared about was sabotaging Adams.

Adams was hurt by this and he and Jefferson were no longer friends. Only late in their lives did Jefferson apologize.

In recent times the GOP have two strategists who perfected dirty politics. Lee Atwater sabotaged Dukakis and helped Reagan win and more recently Rove and Delay were the dirty politicians who would stop at nothing to win. No matter how low they had to go. Lie cheat or steal.

OMG! Somebody who knows recent American political history. Where have you been hiding? Have you seen what passes for recent history around here?

 

[Vanquish]

A corporation has perpetual existence - a person does not.

A corporation is owned by another group of people - a person is not

A corporation can limit its liability for certain tortious conduct - a person cannot

A corporation has no one, single mind - so the concept of mens rea is nigh to impossible to prove

I could continue on and on and on... there are very valid differences that are worthy of upholding.

Mike Dorf and Steve Shiffrin put it this way in a Cornell University press release:

Today's decision in Citizens United v. FEC could pave the way for even further corporate domination of American politics. For over six decades, federal law has sought to combat the corrupting influence of accumulated wealth on our democracy by forbidding corporations from using general revenues to support or oppose particular candidates for office. In light of recent legislation such as the TARP, it would be highly disingenuous at best to argue that this prohibition has prevented well-heeled corporations from making their voices heard in the political process. Moreover, the invalidated restriction was not, as the Court claimed, a "ban" on corporate speech: federal law permits corporations to create separately funded Political Action Committees to promote or oppose candidates for office. In tone and spirit, the majority opinion in Citizens United calls to mind an earlier period of conservative judicial ascendancy, when the interests of corporations were central to the Court's constitutional vision.

Read more here about how the SCOTUS got the case law wrong in this case:
Dorf on Law: Corporations and Speech

What's amazing to me is that I bet anyone who supports this decision probably will SCREAM about how special interests and lobbyists are TEH EVUL!!!! And how they improperly influence government.

GREAT JOB!!! You just multiplied the fucking problem. To ignore the fact that corporations have more money and can assert waaay too much influence over the common man's voice....is just ludicrous.

Feel free to stick your head in the sand and kiss the ass of big business!!!

 

[Vanquish]

Yeah... Obama was extremely rude to the Supreme Court. By tradition, they're not allowed to react or to argue back. There were a myriad of other venues where The Obama might have expressed his celestial displeasure, including privately. What he did instead was childish.

Well if you're going to be fair...which I can't give you the benefit of the doubt on anymore since people around here put party first and logic third...

You need to slam Roberts for his show during the State of the Union. He knew he was on camera.

Only fair.

 

[Murf76]

Yeah... Obama was extremely rude to the Supreme Court. By tradition, they're not allowed to react or to argue back. There were a myriad of other venues where The Obama might have expressed his celestial displeasure, including privately. What he did instead was childish.

Well if you're going to be fair...which I can't give you the benefit of the doubt on anymore since people around here put party first and logic third...

You need to slam Roberts for his show during the State of the Union. He knew he was on camera.

Only fair.

Do try not to be such a snot.

Roberts wouldn't have reacted at all... if Obama hadn't first acted like a like an overly spoiled child having a tantrum. Considering that Obama's the one who decided to poke the bear, I wouldn't have blamed Roberts if he'd jumped up and shouted "You Lie!"

You don't go around provoking people and then whining when it doesn't go your way.

 

[Vanquish]

See...this is exactly what happens when you get partisan. I didn't accuse you..personally...I spoke of the board. But of course you took it personally.

Obama spoke his conscience...and so did Roberts. You can't rail on one and let the other one by.

If you can't be even-handed just say so.

 

[Vast LWC]

A corporation has perpetual existence - a person does not.

A corporation is owned by another group of people - a person is not

A corporation can limit its liability for certain tortious conduct - a person cannot

A corporation has no one, single mind - so the concept of mens rea is nigh to impossible to prove

I could continue on and on and on... there are very valid differences that are worthy of upholding.

Damn, I already gave you rep too short of a time ago! LOL.

Very nice post.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...

Mike Dorf and Steve Shiffrin put it this way in a Cornell University press release:

Today's decision in Citizens United v. FEC could pave the way for even further corporate domination of American politics. For over six decades, federal law has sought to combat the corrupting influence of accumulated wealth on our democracy by forbidding corporations from using general revenues to support or oppose particular candidates for office. In light of recent legislation such as the TARP, it would be highly disingenuous at best to argue that this prohibition has prevented well-heeled corporations from making their voices heard in the political process. Moreover, the invalidated restriction was not, as the Court claimed, a "ban" on corporate speech: federal law permits corporations to create separately funded Political Action Committees to promote or oppose candidates for office. In tone and spirit, the majority opinion in Citizens United calls to mind an earlier period of conservative judicial ascendancy, when the interests of corporations were central to the Court's constitutional vision.

Read more here about how the SCOTUS got the case law wrong in this case:
Dorf on Law: Corporations and Speech

What's amazing to me is that I bet anyone who supports this decision probably will SCREAM about how special interests and lobbyists are TEH EVUL!!!! And how they improperly influence government.

GREAT JOB!!! You just multiplied the fucking problem. To ignore the fact that corporations have more money and can assert waaay too much influence over the common man's voice....is just ludicrous.

Feel free to stick your head in the sand and kiss the ass of big business!!!

yep. that about sums it up.

thanks

 

[Jarhead]

A corporation has perpetual existence - a person does not.

A corporation is owned by another group of people - a person is not

A corporation can limit its liability for certain tortious conduct - a person cannot

A corporation has no one, single mind - so the concept of mens rea is nigh to impossible to prove

I could continue on and on and on... there are very valid differences that are worthy of upholding.

Damn, I already gave you rep too short of a time ago! LOL.

Very nice post.

I agree. AN excellent post with a valid argument. Not sure if I agree. On the outside, I do not agree. But I will admit, This post gives me reason to give the topic further consideration.

Well said vanquish.

 

[Vast LWC]

Wrong. He is a lawyer who is not in Court, but is on a radio show. As much as he educates (limited to those willing to learn), he is also there to entertain. And yelling at obtuse liberoidal imbeciles is a form of entertainment. Hypocrites like you laugh your asses off when filth like Olberman or that putz Maher do their snide, stupid, ignorant schtick. You only object when the opinion being expressed is the opinion you dislike.

Wow, you have no clue what you're talking about here.

After all the posts that I've made criticizing Olbermann and Maddow as partisan hacks (some even in this thread), you're going to sit there and accuse me of that kind of hypocrisy?

And here I thought you knew me better than that by now.

Wrong again. The GOP can take pride in the fact that they tried to prevent President Obama, Congress and a massive irrational dangerous Federal Bureaucracy from RUINING lives. This idiotic legislation will not help people. It will end up causing much more misery and death than the proponents contend.

Obviously our opinions differ here...

...but I'm not going to cut you off and tell you your wife should go kill herself because of it, now am I?

It doesn't amaze me at all that you are incapable of grasping the fundamental nature of the fight. Liberty is crucial. For you, it's a trading card.

Frum was very very wrong and Mark Levin was quite correct.

Frum's "counsel" smacks of the kind of weak-willed RINO shit that has been the ruination of the GOP. Frum is a bit of an asshole. Unlike Levin, Frum cannot seem to make a decision based on fixed principles.

"Liberty is a trading card" for me, huh?

When did you or that bald little piece of turd we are referring to stand up to defend liberty except through ridiculous right-wing talking points?

As we've discussed in the past, I served in the army defending your liberty, and Levin's, and mine. If Levin wasn't such a chicken-hawk, maybe I'd have an ounce of respect for him despite his constant shit-talking, but as it is, I have no respect for him at all.

You don't HAVE a point. It was a bunch of RINOs and schmucks exactly like Frum that made it possible for President Obama and that idiot Pelousy to get a foothold in the first place. Frum's idiotic "counsel" is precisely what's wrong with the GOP. Letting him hear it -- with both barrels -- is EXACTLY the right thing to do.

Which only shows that you're a hyper-partisan hack who is unwilling to accept that anyone has anything to add to the conversation unless they stand in complete agreement with your way of thinking.

Even those people who are close to your ideology, but not quite there, apparently garner your scorn and derision.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A corporation has perpetual existence - a person does not.

A corporation is owned by another group of people - a person is not

A corporation can limit its liability for certain tortious conduct - a person cannot

A corporation has no one, single mind - so the concept of mens rea is nigh to impossible to prove

I could continue on and on and on... there are very valid differences that are worthy of upholding.

Damn, I already gave you rep too short of a time ago! LOL.

Very nice post.

I agree. AN excellent post with a valid argument. Not sure if I agree. On the outside, I do not agree. But I will admit, This post gives me reason to give the topic further consideration.

Well said vanquish.

The question you should be asking yourself is WHY you disagree at the outset. Is it a knee jerk reaction? If so, what does that say about your ability to understand criticisms or facts that challenge your world view? If it is not a knee jerk reaction, welcome to the reasonable and rational circle @ USMB.

 

[Jarhead]

Damn, I already gave you rep too short of a time ago! LOL.

Very nice post.

I agree. AN excellent post with a valid argument. Not sure if I agree. On the outside, I do not agree. But I will admit, This post gives me reason to give the topic further consideration.

Well said vanquish.

The question you should be asking yourself is WHY you disagree at the outset. Is it a knee jerk reaction? If so, what does that say about your ability to understand criticisms or facts that challenge your world view? If it is not a knee jerk reaction, welcome to the reasonable and rational circle @ USMB.

I shall elaborate.

The post itself is fact. No question and I agree with it.

I am referring to applying those facts to the topic in question. THAT is where on the outset, I do not agree, but open to reconsidering my stance on the topic, thanks to Vanquish's post.

How was your weekend Dante?

 

[Murf76]

See...this is exactly what happens when you get partisan. I didn't accuse you..personally...I spoke of the board. But of course you took it personally.

Obama spoke his conscience...and so did Roberts. You can't rail on one and let the other one by.

If you can't be even-handed just say so.

"Well if you're going to be fair...which I can't give you the benefit of the doubt on anymore since people around here put party first and logic third...


Hardly sounds like the general "you", but whatever.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I agree. AN excellent post with a valid argument. Not sure if I agree. On the outside, I do not agree. But I will admit, This post gives me reason to give the topic further consideration.

Well said vanquish.

The question you should be asking yourself is WHY you disagree at the outset. Is it a knee jerk reaction? If so, what does that say about your ability to understand criticisms or facts that challenge your world view? If it is not a knee jerk reaction, welcome to the reasonable and rational circle @ USMB.

I shall elaborate.

The post itself is fact. No question and I agree with it.

I am referring to applying those facts to the topic in question. THAT is where on the outset, I do not agree, but open to reconsidering my stance on the topic, thanks to Vanquish's post.

How was your weekend Dante?

thank you.


---]

m,y weekend? like any other--had a few posts deleted, threads moved...

all round a pleasant one. and you?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Fact is fact... you're an idiot.

 

[Jarhead]

The question you should be asking yourself is WHY you disagree at the outset. Is it a knee jerk reaction? If so, what does that say about your ability to understand criticisms or facts that challenge your world view? If it is not a knee jerk reaction, welcome to the reasonable and rational circle @ USMB.

I shall elaborate.

The post itself is fact. No question and I agree with it.

I am referring to applying those facts to the topic in question. THAT is where on the outset, I do not agree, but open to reconsidering my stance on the topic, thanks to Vanquish's post.

How was your weekend Dante?

thank you.


---]

m,y weekend? like any other--had a few posts deleted, threads moved...

all round a pleasant one. and you?

Did not even come into USMB.

Up early both days and spent all of those hours awake with my beautiful wife.

Well, except for the saturday night poker game. And the 3 hour fishing thing with my buds. OK, 6 hours, but the first three hours they werent biting. And the ride with the guys along the shore. Cant forget that. Oh yeah, and the overhauling my frineds risers and manifolds on his boat.

My wife? Dam. Was she even around this weekend?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Fact is fact... you're an idiot.

keep practicing in your mirror. I hear it works.

 

[MarcATL]

A corporation has perpetual existence - a person does not.

A corporation is owned by another group of people - a person is not

A corporation can limit its liability for certain tortious conduct - a person cannot

A corporation has no one, single mind - so the concept of mens rea is nigh to impossible to prove

I could continue on and on and on... there are very valid differences that are worthy of upholding.

Mike Dorf and Steve Shiffrin put it this way in a Cornell University press release:

Today's decision in Citizens United v. FEC could pave the way for even further corporate domination of American politics. For over six decades, federal law has sought to combat the corrupting influence of accumulated wealth on our democracy by forbidding corporations from using general revenues to support or oppose particular candidates for office. In light of recent legislation such as the TARP, it would be highly disingenuous at best to argue that this prohibition has prevented well-heeled corporations from making their voices heard in the political process. Moreover, the invalidated restriction was not, as the Court claimed, a "ban" on corporate speech: federal law permits corporations to create separately funded Political Action Committees to promote or oppose candidates for office. In tone and spirit, the majority opinion in Citizens United calls to mind an earlier period of conservative judicial ascendancy, when the interests of corporations were central to the Court's constitutional vision.

Read more here about how the SCOTUS got the case law wrong in this case:
Dorf on Law: Corporations and Speech

What's amazing to me is that I bet anyone who supports this decision probably will SCREAM about how special interests and lobbyists are TEH EVUL!!!! And how they improperly influence government.

GREAT JOB!!! You just multiplied the fucking problem. To ignore the fact that corporations have more money and can assert waaay too much influence over the common man's voice....is just ludicrous.

Feel free to stick your head in the sand and kiss the ass of big business!!!

Yep...its the Right-Wing WAY!!!

BOTH...

AND!

 

[Vanquish]

" people around here"


At least you didn't omit the part you were overlooking/avoiding. I can see how you might interpret it that way.

 

[CMike]

A corporation has perpetual existence - a person does not.

A corporation is owned by another group of people - a person is not

A corporation can limit its liability for certain tortious conduct - a person cannot

A corporation has no one, single mind - so the concept of mens rea is nigh to impossible to prove

I could continue on and on and on... there are very valid differences that are worthy of upholding.

Mike Dorf and Steve Shiffrin put it this way in a Cornell University press release:

Today's decision in Citizens United v. FEC could pave the way for even further corporate domination of American politics. For over six decades, federal law has sought to combat the corrupting influence of accumulated wealth on our democracy by forbidding corporations from using general revenues to support or oppose particular candidates for office. In light of recent legislation such as the TARP, it would be highly disingenuous at best to argue that this prohibition has prevented well-heeled corporations from making their voices heard in the political process. Moreover, the invalidated restriction was not, as the Court claimed, a "ban" on corporate speech: federal law permits corporations to create separately funded Political Action Committees to promote or oppose candidates for office. In tone and spirit, the majority opinion in Citizens United calls to mind an earlier period of conservative judicial ascendancy, when the interests of corporations were central to the Court's constitutional vision.

Read more here about how the SCOTUS got the case law wrong in this case:
Dorf on Law: Corporations and Speech

What's amazing to me is that I bet anyone who supports this decision probably will SCREAM about how special interests and lobbyists are TEH EVUL!!!! And how they improperly influence government.

GREAT JOB!!! You just multiplied the fucking problem. To ignore the fact that corporations have more money and can assert waaay too much influence over the common man's voice....is just ludicrous.

Feel free to stick your head in the sand and kiss the ass of big business!!!

I guess my question was too tough the first time.

Let's try it again.

Corporations are made up of

a) Robots

b) Machines

c) People

Scroll down for answer (better luck this time)











































































c) People.

 

[CMike]

A corporation has perpetual existence - a person does not.

A corporation is owned by another group of people - a person is not

A corporation can limit its liability for certain tortious conduct - a person cannot

A corporation has no one, single mind - so the concept of mens rea is nigh to impossible to prove

I could continue on and on and on... there are very valid differences that are worthy of upholding.

Damn, I already gave you rep too short of a time ago! LOL.

Very nice post.

I agree. AN excellent post with a valid argument. Not sure if I agree. On the outside, I do not agree. But I will admit, This post gives me reason to give the topic further consideration.

Well said vanquish.

Liberals are truely retarded.

I didn't say a corporation is the same exact thing as a person. I said a corporation is made up of people

And once again, newspapers are part of corporations, how come they can have publically endorse and campaign for a particular candidate?

As the Supreme Court ruled with the proliferation of the Internet, what is media and what is just simply a "corporations" is blurred.

Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled, that corporations can put in political ads.