Is This True? If yes then something needs to be done damn fast

Discussion in 'Politics' started by mmmjvpssm, Jul 3, 2011.

  1. mmmjvpssm
    Offline

    mmmjvpssm Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    379
    Thanks Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +36
    Corporations can contribute to candidates with no restrictions but there are limits on what unions can give?
     
  2. brono921
    Offline

    brono921 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Messages:
    91
    Thanks Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +10
    Obama did very well on both ends.
     
  3. mmmjvpssm
    Offline

    mmmjvpssm Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    379
    Thanks Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +36
    That doesn't address the topic
     
  4. Rozman
    Offline

    Rozman Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Messages:
    16,573
    Thanks Received:
    3,060
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Brooklyn,NY
    Ratings:
    +6,687
    And Obama running for President received millions from overseas donors,foreign donors who
    knew just the right amount of money to send so as to keep their identity secret....

    No one on the left complained about that... :eusa_whistle:
     
  5. brono921
    Offline

    brono921 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Messages:
    91
    Thanks Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +10
    B]That doesn't address the topic[/B][/QUOTE]

    Actually, it does. Ya see, many of you liberals didn't have a problem with Obama reneging on his campaign financing, as he pulled in millions from wallstreet, the soon to be bailed out banks, and unions.
    Now that many of these institutions are bailing on the democrats, you've suddenly got a problem with it.
    It's called hypocrisy, and you liberals seem to have plenty of it.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. mmmjvpssm
    Offline

    mmmjvpssm Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    379
    Thanks Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +36
    That has nothing to do with it. Although that is a good thing if true. Maybe this little trick the Republicans have won't work

    Now back to the subject, explain to me why we're violating a coporations freedom of speech when we put limits on what they can contribute but it's not a violation of free speech to put limits on what unions can give
     
  7. mmmjvpssm
    Offline

    mmmjvpssm Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    379
    Thanks Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +36
    A huge part of the problem is that the Republicans have gotten what they'd been damanding for years, a "balanced unbiased Supreme Court" which sounds good except that when Republicans say "balanced and unbiased" what they really mean is far right and totally biased toward the far right

    Coporations tend to donte more to Republicans then Democrats, so of course the lackies on the court want them to be able to give as much as they want
     
  8. mmmjvpssm
    Offline

    mmmjvpssm Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    379
    Thanks Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +36
    No, it doesn't
     
  9. mmmjvpssm
    Offline

    mmmjvpssm Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    379
    Thanks Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +36
    Putting restrictions on contributions is either a violation of free speech or it isn't. It doesn't matter who gave how much to Obama or anybody else
     
  10. brono921
    Offline

    brono921 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Messages:
    91
    Thanks Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +10
    No, it doesn't[/QUOTE]

    Yeah, it does, for the reasons just put forth.
    Your money is drying up, and now you're pissing and moaning.
    Looks like Obama is going to be a one termer, just like Jimmy Carter.
     

Share This Page