McCain Calls Out Romney Over Foreign Money

[bravoactual]

Any RePug here remember you guys got your frillies all in bunch over how "Clinton Was Taking Money From China" during his Presidential Campaign?

Well guys, it seems that Romnoid's Super Pac is taking foreign money as well.

So far, you guy ain't said shit about it either.

John McCain: Mitt Romney Super PAC And Others Receiving Foreign Cash.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Thanks. We really needed this thread in addition to the other three that already exist on this topic. The search function is your friend.

 

[hjmick]

An American citizen uses money from the profits earned from properties he owns and this is "foreign money?" Because some of the properties are located overseas? Really?

I'm not sure how this works...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Any RePug here remember you guys got your frillies all in bunch over how "Clinton Was Taking Money From China" during his Presidential Campaign?

Well guys, it seems that Romnoid's Super Pac is taking foreign money as well.

So far, you guy ain't said shit about it either.

John McCain: Mitt Romney Super PAC And Others Receiving Foreign Cash.

So tell us brain dead? Is Soros money all made ONLY in the US? The criteria for giving is that you be an American. There is no criteria as to WHERE you earned the money. Already owned you turds in the other threads.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Wow Only Republicans get foreign money, Do democrats ever try to be objective or research anything? OMG if the left puts out talking points, they just march in lockstep. Conservatives have bitched about foreign money since Clinton got money from the Chinese and Al Gore froma Buddist Temple. It's old news.

 

[Sarah G]

Any RePug here remember you guys got your frillies all in bunch over how "Clinton Was Taking Money From China" during his Presidential Campaign?

Well guys, it seems that Romnoid's Super Pac is taking foreign money as well.

So far, you guy ain't said shit about it either.

John McCain: Mitt Romney Super PAC And Others Receiving Foreign Cash.

I think Lindsey Graham was talking about this too.

 

[BreezeWood]

John McCain: Mitt Romney Super PAC And Others Receiving Foreign Cash

McCain, a Romney rival in 2008 and now one of his top supporters, said the Supreme Court got it wrong in Citizens United, the court case that paved the way for super PACs. He called the decision "the most misguided, naive, uninformed, egregious decision of the United States Supreme Court, I think, in the 21st century."

And, again, we need a level playing field and we need to go back to the realization that Teddy Roosevelt had: that we have to have a limit on the flow of money and that corporations are not people,"

... and that corporations are not people

the issue is whether money collected by an enterprise should be allowed to influence political events - the R Court gave Corp. Treasuries individual rights.

 

[bravoactual]

Thanks. We really needed this thread in addition to the other three that already exist on this topic. The search function is your friend.

Must really bug the shit out of you to see Mittens selling himself to a foreign country.

 

[The T]

Any RePug here remember you guys got your frillies all in bunch over how "Clinton Was Taking Money From China" during his Presidential Campaign?

Well guys, it seems that Romnoid's Super Pac is taking foreign money as well.

So far, you guy ain't said shit about it either.

John McCain: Mitt Romney Super PAC And Others Receiving Foreign Cash.

So tell us brain dead? Is Soros money all made ONLY in the US? The criteria for giving is that you be an American. There is no criteria as to WHERE you earned the money. Already owned you turds in the other threads.

Indeed. Soros has blatently brought down economies...WE are his latest target...and will fall when the EU crumbles...Keep an eye on the vote in Greece today...

Greece Votes With Euro at Stake on Eve of Global Summit

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Any RePug here remember you guys got your frillies all in bunch over how "Clinton Was Taking Money From China" during his Presidential Campaign?

Well guys, it seems that Romnoid's Super Pac is taking foreign money as well.

So far, you guy ain't said shit about it either.

John McCain: Mitt Romney Super PAC And Others Receiving Foreign Cash.

Juan McCain should shut the fuck up

He handed Obama the presidency

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Thanks. We really needed this thread in addition to the other three that already exist on this topic. The search function is your friend.

Must really bug the shit out of you to see Mittens selling himself to a foreign country.

Not really, because he isn't.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

... and that corporations are not people

the issue is whether money collected by an enterprise should be allowed to influence political events - the R Court gave Corp. Treasuries individual rights.

No, they didn't. The concept of corporate personhood has existed since the early 19th century. They went along with 200 years of legal precedent, right or wrong.

 

[The T]

Thanks. We really needed this thread in addition to the other three that already exist on this topic. The search function is your friend.

Must really bug the shit out of you to see Mittens selling himself to a foreign country.

Not really, because he isn't.

Obama sold himself and US out with his 'Apology Tour '09'.

 

[BreezeWood]

... and that corporations are not people

the issue is whether money collected by an enterprise should be allowed to influence political events - the R Court gave Corp. Treasuries individual rights.

No, they didn't. The concept of corporate personhood has existed since the early 19th century. They went along with 200 years of legal precedent, right or wrong.

no, they overturned 200 years of legal precedent by their ruling ...

buying a hamburger at McDonald's is not a pledge to support Romney ... is what the R Court overturned.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

... and that corporations are not people

the issue is whether money collected by an enterprise should be allowed to influence political events - the R Court gave Corp. Treasuries individual rights.

No, they didn't. The concept of corporate personhood has existed since the early 19th century. They went along with 200 years of legal precedent, right or wrong.

no, they overturned 200 years of legal precedent by their ruling ...

buying a hamburger at McDonald's is not a pledge to support Romney ... is what the R Court overturned.

No, they didn't. The concept of corporate personhood has existed since the early 19th century. They went along with 200 years of legal precedent, right or wrong.

So shut the fuck up until you actually do a little bit of reading and know what you're talking about. When I'm ignorant on a subject I usually stay out of the conversation. It's good advice you really ought to take right now.

 

[Greenbeard]

Well guys, it seems that Romnoid's Super Pac is taking foreign money as well.

The mere insinuation leaves Sammy Alito sputtering with rage. Take it back!

 

[BreezeWood]

No, they didn't. The concept of corporate personhood has existed since the early 19th century. They went along with 200 years of legal precedent, right or wrong.

no, they overturned 200 years of legal precedent by their ruling ...

buying a hamburger at McDonald's is not a pledge to support Romney ... is what the R Court overturned.

No, they didn't. The concept of corporate personhood has existed since the early 19th century. They went along with 200 years of legal precedent, right or wrong.

So shut the fuck up until you actually do a little bit of reading and know what you're talking about. When I'm ignorant on a subject I usually stay out of the conversation. It's good advice you really ought to take right now.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Legal entities, Stevens wrote, are not "We the People" for whom our Constitution was established. Therefore, he argued, they should not be given speech protections under the First Amendment. The First Amendment, he argued, protects individual self-expression, self-realization and the communication of ideas. Corporate spending is the "furthest from the core of political expression" protected by the Constitution, he argued, citing Federal Election Commission v. Beaumont, 539 U.S. 146 (2003), and corporate spending on politics should be viewed as a business transaction designed by the officers or the boards of directors for no purpose other than profit-making. Stevens called corporate spending "more transactional than ideological". Stevens also pointed out that any member of a corporation may spend personal money on promoting a campaign because BCRA only prohibited the use of general treasury money.

Stevens referred to the majority's argument that "there is no such thing as too much speech" as "facile" and a "straw man" argument. He called it an incorrect statement of First Amendment law because the Court recognizes numerous exceptions to free speech, such as fighting words, obscenity restrictions, time, place and manner restrictions, etc. Throughout the dissent, Stevens argued that the majority's "slogan" ignored the possibility that too much speech from one source could "drown out" other points of view.

Seventh, Stevens argued that the majority opinion ignored the rights of shareholders.

Stevens concluded his dissent:

At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.

"Legal entities, Stevens wrote, are not "We the People" for whom our Constitution was established".

At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding.

Dont Taz Me Bro: They went along with 200 years of legal precedent, right or wrong.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Supreme Court reversed, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from spending on "electioneering communications".

the court reversed an existing law and by doing so did not follow Precedent.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Thanks. We really needed this thread in addition to the other three that already exist on this topic. The search function is your friend.

...And petty deflections are your friend

 

[blackhawk]

Foreign money really? Now the way this is see accepting foreign money is this if a non U.S. citizen, foreign government or foreign owned business donates money to your campaign. If a U.S. citizen takes the money that he earned from properties he owns overseas and donates them that is a American citizen donating their money to who they wish.

 

[Peach]

John McCain: Mitt Romney Super PAC And Others Receiving Foreign Cash

McCain, a Romney rival in 2008 and now one of his top supporters, said the Supreme Court got it wrong in Citizens United, the court case that paved the way for super PACs. He called the decision "the most misguided, naive, uninformed, egregious decision of the United States Supreme Court, I think, in the 21st century."

And, again, we need a level playing field and we need to go back to the realization that Teddy Roosevelt had: that we have to have a limit on the flow of money and that corporations are not people,"

... and that corporations are not people

the issue is whether money collected by an enterprise should be allowed to influence political events - the R Court gave Corp. Treasuries individual rights.

Corporations are individuals for some purposes, and it is good to see McCain acting like the thoughtful, MIDDLE OF THE ROAD, public servant he used to be.