what does the right want now?

[Truthmatters]

Summary of the Argument


In Citizens United V The Federal Elecction Commision, 130 S.Ct. 876,904 (2010), the Supreme Court stated "f the first Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congreess from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens for simply enguaging in political speech." Yet that is precisely what is happening in this case. The Defendants- Appellees face imprisonment under count 4 of the indictment simply for seeking to enguage in political speech through the Corporate form.


This is on page 2

http://images.politico.com/global/2012/01/rncamicus.pdf

this is cold hard fact people.

 

[Truthmatters]

Your leaving because you can not defend this action.

There is NO DOUBT it happened.

Its a court document filed by the GOP.

The words speak for themselves.


The republican party wants corporations to run this country and NOT voters.

why won't you address the democratic briefs? why is it you ignore their arguments which are virtually identical?

Go get them

 

[Yurt]

Your leaving because you can not defend this action.

There is NO DOUBT it happened.

Its a court document filed by the GOP.

The words speak for themselves.


The republican party wants corporations to run this country and NOT voters.

why won't you address the democratic briefs? why is it you ignore their arguments which are virtually identical?

then why haven't you answered the question about democrats and the fact that this is a democratic case?

 

[Yurt]

Your leaving because you can not defend this action.

There is NO DOUBT it happened.

Its a court document filed by the GOP.

The words speak for themselves.


The republican party wants corporations to run this country and NOT voters.

why won't you address the democratic briefs? why is it you ignore their arguments which are virtually identical?

Your leaving because you can not defend this action.

There is NO DOUBT it happened.

Its a court document filed by the GOP.

The words speak for themselves.


The republican party wants corporations to run this country and NOT voters.

why won't you address the democratic briefs? why is it you ignore their arguments which are virtually identical?

Go get them

whose case is this?

 

[Truthmatters]

if you are talking about the two guys who will go to jail then that is NOT the democratic party is it.

Now realise the GOP is coming to these guys defense, WHY?????

 

[Yurt]

if you are talking about the two guys who will go to jail then that is NOT the democratic party is it.

Now realise the GOP is coming to these guys defense, WHY?????

and you wonder why people think you are dishonest. democrats filed arguments virtually identical to the republicans brief in support. but you want to dishonestly claim it is only the GOP who wants this.

 

[The Infidel]

Damn leagalise is boring.

Statement of interest notes that they are filing a brief in favor of a democrat getting a corporate donation.

Their argument is that the government is forbidden under the terms of the first amendment from interfering in the first amendment rights of people speaking as part of a group. When you restrict the rights of folks to express their opinion through any means at their disposal, you are chilling free speech in its entirety.

You have an issue with corporations speaking their mind. I have a problem with confused little old ladies with cute doggies speaking theirs.

Free speech is free speech no matter who.

Sure they were just trying to protect a democratic Donor.


Your insane

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.


When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

 

[Truthmatters]

if you are talking about the two guys who will go to jail then that is NOT the democratic party is it.

Now realise the GOP is coming to these guys defense, WHY?????

and you wonder why people think you are dishonest. democrats filed arguments virtually identical to the republicans brief in support. but you want to dishonestly claim it is only the GOP who wants this.

Nope YOU are lying.

The two defendants filed that.

The GOP PARTY came to their defense

 

[Ernie S.]

Name a lie I have spread?

I havent lied about anything

that makes you the liar

I know many people who are mormon.

Hell I have a family memeber or two who joined the church.

I would not vote for them either if they ran.

I will not vote for secrets to be kept from me from someone running for office.

If the mormon chruch cant tell us about their religion and have to keep secrets from us then they are hiding something.


as long as they hide their real lives I cant vote for any of them.

You admitted that while living in Nevada, you voted for Harry Reid. Proof is a visitor message from you on my profile page. YOU ARE A LIAR!

 

[Truthmatters]

you have been answered and I told you I would not vote for anyone for the presidency who had a secretive religion.


Why do you pretend you were not answered?

 

[Ernie S.]

Waiting, liar.

 

[Truthmatters]

Summary of the Argument


In Citizens United V The Federal Elecction Commision, 130 S.Ct. 876,904 (2010), the Supreme Court stated "f the first Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congreess from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens for simply enguaging in political speech." Yet that is precisely what is happening in this case. The Defendants- Appellees face imprisonment under count 4 of the indictment simply for seeking to enguage in political speech through the Corporate form.


This is on page 2

http://images.politico.com/global/2012/01/rncamicus.pdf

do you defend this?

 

[Ernie S.]

you have been answered and I told you I would not vote for anyone for the presidency who had a secretive religion.


Why do you pretend you were not answered?

Why do you pretend you didn't lie?
Yes you answered by moving the goal posts. In the post I quoted above, where did you use the qualifier "Presidency"?

 

[Truthmatters]

go start a thread about it.

this one already has a subject

 

[Ernie S.]

Summary of the Argument


In Citizens United V The Federal Elecction Commision, 130 S.Ct. 876,904 (2010), the Supreme Court stated "f the first Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congreess from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens for simply enguaging in political speech." Yet that is precisely what is happening in this case. The Defendants- Appellees face imprisonment under count 4 of the indictment simply for seeking to enguage in political speech through the Corporate form.


This is on page 2

http://images.politico.com/global/2012/01/rncamicus.pdf

do you defend this?

Who? Me?
Suppose you tell us, in your own words why you disagree?

 

[Truthmatters]

Because it will distory the power of the individual voter.

We will no longer be able to maintain a democracy

 

[Ernie S.]

go start a thread about it.

this one already has a subject

You made the claim that you're not a liar, in this thread. I proved you wrong, in this thread. You opened the door idjut. You can't claim off topic now that it's inconvenient.

 

[Ernie S.]

Because it will distory the power of the individual voter.

We will no longer be able to maintain a democracy

WTF is distory?

 

[Truthmatters]

If a corporation is allowed to give umlimited money then how do you guarantee the money is not an attempt from some foreigner to effect our elections?

 

[Ernie S.]

If, perchance, you meant "destroy", tell me how that will happen. Corporations can't vote. All they can do is spend money on advertisements to TRY to influence votors to see their perspective. Kind of like the Teachers' Union, the AFL-CIO GE, Microsoft etc.
You, dear lady are still capable of rejecting their argument and voting for ever you choose.
Perhaps you believe that the Liberal base is so uninformed that presented with a logical Conservative argument, they may jump ship?