Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That's not really true. At issue was McCain Feingold, which first of all was a bipartisan bill signed by W. Citizens United also overruled prior law holding that corp money could be restricted in politics.We the People, Not We the CorporationsI suppose a corporation should have the freedom to run commercials but we want to know who's behind those commercials. Citizens United doesn't sound nearly as bad as it is. That's what Republicans do. They pass a bill called the Freedom Bill or Support The Troops bill but in reality it does the exact opposite.Then the corporations should be allowed to defend themselves. That is "fair" a term you all bleat about all the time. See how that works? No, no you don't. You are only interested in fair when you have all of the advantages and the opponent has to fight with a blindfold and one hand tied behind his back.
For the record I hate multinational corporations, I really do. But the crap you support helps them and strangles the small corporations that made this country great at one time. You are a one dimensional thinker which is why you are easily led about by the nose. That's a common problem with most progressives. You are all very childlike in that way.
Learn the history, you are sounding really stupid.
On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions.
We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens Unitedand other related cases, and move to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.
We Move to Amend.
". . . corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their 'personhood' often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established."We the People, Not We the Corporations | Move to Amend
~Supreme Court Justice Stevens, January 2010
Again, you aren't following history, you are cherry picking. The Democrats sold you out causing Citizens United to take a case to the Supreme Court. Had the Democrats not passed the bill to begin with, Citizens United would not of had a case.
Really? Did you looked at Obama's billion dollar campaign budget? Who was the bigger whore in 2012? It looks like Obama by a long shot,over Romney.
I'm not defending one party over another....but you SHOULD note (based on the above chart) who spent more money on the campaign..................Was it Obama or was it Romney?
McCain was a sponsor, and to be bipartisan you don't have to have a majority of both parties ... unless you're a member of the tea party.That's not really true. At issue was McCain Feingold, which first of all was a bipartisan bill signed by W. Citizens United also overruled prior law holding that corp money could be restricted in politics.We the People, Not We the CorporationsI suppose a corporation should have the freedom to run commercials but we want to know who's behind those commercials. Citizens United doesn't sound nearly as bad as it is. That's what Republicans do. They pass a bill called the Freedom Bill or Support The Troops bill but in reality it does the exact opposite.
Learn the history, you are sounding really stupid.
On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions.
We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens Unitedand other related cases, and move to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.
We Move to Amend.
". . . corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their 'personhood' often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established."We the People, Not We the Corporations | Move to Amend
~Supreme Court Justice Stevens, January 2010
Again, you aren't following history, you are cherry picking. The Democrats sold you out causing Citizens United to take a case to the Supreme Court. Had the Democrats not passed the bill to begin with, Citizens United would not of had a case.
The bill was supported by a large majority of Democrats and the majority Republicans voted against it. Bush signed it and at that time said he wasn't sure about the Constitutionality of the bill. Stupid for,him to do. But to say it was Bipartisan when only 52 Republicans voted yes and over 200 voted against it?
Really? How is that bipartisan?
McCain was a sponsor, and to be bipartisan you don't have to have a majority of both parties ... unless you're a member of the tea party.That's not really true. At issue was McCain Feingold, which first of all was a bipartisan bill signed by W. Citizens United also overruled prior law holding that corp money could be restricted in politics.We the People, Not We the CorporationsLearn the history, you are sounding really stupid.
On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions.
We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens Unitedand other related cases, and move to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.
We Move to Amend.
". . . corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their 'personhood' often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established."We the People, Not We the Corporations | Move to Amend
~Supreme Court Justice Stevens, January 2010
Again, you aren't following history, you are cherry picking. The Democrats sold you out causing Citizens United to take a case to the Supreme Court. Had the Democrats not passed the bill to begin with, Citizens United would not of had a case.
The bill was supported by a large majority of Democrats and the majority Republicans voted against it. Bush signed it and at that time said he wasn't sure about the Constitutionality of the bill. Stupid for,him to do. But to say it was Bipartisan when only 52 Republicans voted yes and over 200 voted against it?
Really? How is that bipartisan?
can you believe that the left actually thinks that the Democrat party isn't BOUGHT by Big money and Big Business?
they aren't only bought by those, but I believe they are getting money FROM FOREIGNERS. look at Obama and his Iranian connection in Valerie Jarrett. Hillary and Huma. etc. George Soros, Buffet, some billionaire environmentalist etc etc
oh bullshit. a third of the gopers in the freaking senate voted for it, and W signed it because it was bipartisan.McCain was a sponsor, and to be bipartisan you don't have to have a majority of both parties ... unless you're a member of the tea party.That's not really true. At issue was McCain Feingold, which first of all was a bipartisan bill signed by W. Citizens United also overruled prior law holding that corp money could be restricted in politics.We the People, Not We the Corporations
On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions.
We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens Unitedand other related cases, and move to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.
We Move to Amend.
". . . corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their 'personhood' often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established."We the People, Not We the Corporations | Move to Amend
~Supreme Court Justice Stevens, January 2010
Again, you aren't following history, you are cherry picking. The Democrats sold you out causing Citizens United to take a case to the Supreme Court. Had the Democrats not passed the bill to begin with, Citizens United would not of had a case.
The bill was supported by a large majority of Democrats and the majority Republicans voted against it. Bush signed it and at that time said he wasn't sure about the Constitutionality of the bill. Stupid for,him to do. But to say it was Bipartisan when only 52 Republicans voted yes and over 200 voted against it?
Really? How is that bipartisan?
McCain is an idiot, it didn't get bipartisan support, it was a Democratic bill.
Well, I'm not really interested in who spent "more." And I'm certainly not going to invest time in a pissing match with G5000, whom I'd probably agree with anyway LOL. But, I think you'd have to add in not just superpacs, but individual campaign spending and spending by the natl party. And, while my memory may be wrong, I think overall Mitt had a slight advantage. Obama took him out early by defining him as a plutocrat. Mitt did nothing to refute that though. If a rich guy wants to be pres, he's got to pay close to the highest rate of people in the 90% percentile. And best yet, put it in a trust.Who raised more?
Obama did....obviously.
Now, if you are a fiscal conservative, you'd have to admit that spending LESS and winning, is better than spending MORE and losing.
oh bullshit. a third of the gopers in the freaking senate voted for it, and W signed it because it was bipartisan.McCain was a sponsor, and to be bipartisan you don't have to have a majority of both parties ... unless you're a member of the tea party.That's not really true. At issue was McCain Feingold, which first of all was a bipartisan bill signed by W. Citizens United also overruled prior law holding that corp money could be restricted in politics.Again, you aren't following history, you are cherry picking. The Democrats sold you out causing Citizens United to take a case to the Supreme Court. Had the Democrats not passed the bill to begin with, Citizens United would not of had a case.
The bill was supported by a large majority of Democrats and the majority Republicans voted against it. Bush signed it and at that time said he wasn't sure about the Constitutionality of the bill. Stupid for,him to do. But to say it was Bipartisan when only 52 Republicans voted yes and over 200 voted against it?
Really? How is that bipartisan?
McCain is an idiot, it didn't get bipartisan support, it was a Democratic bill.
You beat me to it. LOLAre they purchasing from Soros?
oh bullshit. a third of the gopers in the freaking senate voted for it, and W signed it because it was bipartisan.McCain was a sponsor, and to be bipartisan you don't have to have a majority of both parties ... unless you're a member of the tea party.That's not really true. At issue was McCain Feingold, which first of all was a bipartisan bill signed by W. Citizens United also overruled prior law holding that corp money could be restricted in politics.
The bill was supported by a large majority of Democrats and the majority Republicans voted against it. Bush signed it and at that time said he wasn't sure about the Constitutionality of the bill. Stupid for,him to do. But to say it was Bipartisan when only 52 Republicans voted yes and over 200 voted against it?
Really? How is that bipartisan?
McCain is an idiot, it didn't get bipartisan support, it was a Democratic bill.
New math? 11 of 49 is a third? Interesting. Did I say Bush didn't sign it?
He made mention at the time questioning the Constitutionality of his bill. Had the Democrats not overwhelmingly passed the bill, it would have been history, Democrats wanted to secure their incumbency. Had it not been passed, there would have been no Citizens United.
Who raised more?
Obama did....obviously.
Now, if you are a fiscal conservative, you'd have to admit that spending LESS and winning, is better than spending MORE and losing.
oh bullshit. a third of the gopers in the freaking senate voted for it, and W signed it because it was bipartisan.McCain was a sponsor, and to be bipartisan you don't have to have a majority of both parties ... unless you're a member of the tea party.The bill was supported by a large majority of Democrats and the majority Republicans voted against it. Bush signed it and at that time said he wasn't sure about the Constitutionality of the bill. Stupid for,him to do. But to say it was Bipartisan when only 52 Republicans voted yes and over 200 voted against it?
Really? How is that bipartisan?
McCain is an idiot, it didn't get bipartisan support, it was a Democratic bill.
New math? 11 of 49 is a third? Interesting. Did I say Bush didn't sign it?
He made mention at the time questioning the Constitutionality of his bill. Had the Democrats not overwhelmingly passed the bill, it would have been history, Democrats wanted to secure their incumbency. Had it not been passed, there would have been no Citizens United.
FU. And yeah 11 out of 49 is bipartisan too. Unless you're a teabagger.
I don't have a candidate that I like because of the money issue. They are all bought off, but to say either is better than the other? You are joking.
I don't have a candidate that I like because of the money issue. They are all bought off, but to say either is better than the other? You are joking.
You sound like a Bernie supporter, then. He raises money from individuals, has no Pacs and is foregoing all corporate donations.
Convicted felon George Soros says thanks!The amount of money promised by the Koch brothers to "buy" the next election cycle, is STAGGERING.......Can anyone (with a straight face) actually state that the Kochs will not be asking for anything back from those corrupted politicans whom they'll help gain office? Thanks to the Supreme Court, the brothel that is D.C. has gotten even sleazier......
Who will benefit? Cable stations and local channels, printers, conference halls, etc.
And who will lose? Common citizens, including the right wing, ultra conservative dimwits ....
Koch brothers set 889 million budget for 2016
WASHINGTON — Top officials in the Koch brothers' political organization Monday released a staggering $889 million budget to fund the activities of the billionaires' sprawling network ahead of the 2016 presidential contest.
The budget, which pays for everything from advertising and data-gathering technology to grass-roots activism, was released to donors attending the annual winter meeting of Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, according to an attendee.
Well we know who the whores are (politicians) the buyers are of course the pimps, the citizenry are obviously the tricks since ultimately we're the ones that get fucked.Why blame the buyers? It seems to me that the sellers are the ones that are supposed to be the public servants and thus above bribery and corruption. You increase the power of government you increase the demand for and the profitability of buying politicians.
I tend to agree......Now, of the "buyers" and "sellers" who are the pimps and who are the whores?
Convicted felon George Soros says thanks!
