What is it called

[grunt11b]

Have you ever known a case where the taxpayer wasn't left holding the bag? If you are looking for evidence of some sort of conspiracy by using vague terms like "influence" and "put in a position" you are barking up the wrong tree. The reason republicans were elected last november was to get a handle on spending. It remains to be seen how powerful unions are when they are backed by the liberal mainstream media and the administration.

I agree 100%

 

[ABikerSailor]

All I said was private companies have a legal right to donate to whom they want to. But dirty politicians who take tax payer money to launder it into a union to have it come back to them for campaigns is criminal. You don't have to agree with it, but the fact remains that one is legal while the other is not.
Don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion or anything here.

Speaking of which you stupid grunt.....you may wish to do a review.........

First, corporations WEREN'T allowed to donate to campaigns of politicians until AFTER the Supreme Court ruling stating that they could, and the Supreme Court justices who voted for it were appointed by Bush Jr.

They changed the law to make it legal to basically buy the government.

Were you born this stupid or did you get a lobotomy in the Marines?

First of all, it's "You're" or "You are", not 'You". If you wish to insult someone about there intelligence, at least learn proper grammar first.
Also, it is perfectly legal for the congress to change the laws, it is called the amendment process, if your cronies in Washington do not like the way things are, they can amend the law regarding it. Maybe you should be yelling at them, instead of sitting here trying to make feeble attempts at insulting someone who clearly has you defeated in this argument.
Also, your academic pedigree does not outweigh the strength of my argument.

Typical idiot response........you go after some perceived grammatical error when you have nothing to retort with.

Yes, the laws can be amended, but that's not what happened in the SC, they did a LEGAL ruling on it, of which many of the justices who voted in favor of it, were Bush Jr. appointees.

As far as changing the law? That's done by Congress, you know.....the House of Representatives and the Senate?

I see you really are a retarded little n00b.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

You are loser your appeal gaybikerbitch
Your insults used to be worth tuning in for. Now they are as flaccid as your other argument.

 

[washamericom]

Let's review.

Last week the rightwingloons called school teachers terrorists.

This week they label them mobsters.

What next?

airport pat down, then fired...

 

[boedicca]

When one party( union) uses it influence to put another party(political candidates) in a position where the second party is to negotiant a contract with the first party, leaving the taxpayer holding the bag?

Big Government Cronyism-Corruption.

 

[washamericom]

You are loser your appeal gaybikerbitch
Your insults used to be worth tuning in for. Now they are as flaccid as your other argument.

i'd have to agree... ass backward sailor has lost his mojo... sort of has the sausageboard shanks...

 

[Oddball]

Let's review.

Last week the rightwingloons called school teachers terrorists.

This week they label them mobsters.

What next?

Would you like fries with that, sir?

 

[grunt11b]

Speaking of which you stupid grunt.....you may wish to do a review.........

First, corporations WEREN'T allowed to donate to campaigns of politicians until AFTER the Supreme Court ruling stating that they could, and the Supreme Court justices who voted for it were appointed by Bush Jr.

They changed the law to make it legal to basically buy the government.

Were you born this stupid or did you get a lobotomy in the Marines?

First of all, it's "You're" or "You are", not 'You". If you wish to insult someone about there intelligence, at least learn proper grammar first.
Also, it is perfectly legal for the congress to change the laws, it is called the amendment process, if your cronies in Washington do not like the way things are, they can amend the law regarding it. Maybe you should be yelling at them, instead of sitting here trying to make feeble attempts at insulting someone who clearly has you defeated in this argument.
Also, your academic pedigree does not outweigh the strength of my argument.

Typical idiot response........you go after some perceived grammatical error when you have nothing to retort with.

Yes, the laws can be amended, but that's not what happened in the SC, they did a LEGAL ruling on it, of which many of the justices who voted in favor of it, were Bush Jr. appointees.

As far as changing the law? That's done by Congress, you know.....the House of Representatives and the Senate?

I see you really are a retarded little n00b.

Actually they challenged my intellect first, or did you miss that part? So therefore I was perfectly justified in raising the grammatical flag against them.
Also, the congress and senate cannot change the law by themselves and have to forward the bill for the presidents signature to finalize it.
Typical liberal, resorts to name calling when the argument they throw out there has no merits.
And also, if you read my post, I explained the amendment process so it's not like you just brought that to light here.
Maybe you should go back to college and tell them you need a crash course on reading comprehension.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You are loser your appeal gaybikerbitch
Your insults used to be worth tuning in for. Now they are as flaccid as your other argument.

You know......I'd really be offended if you said that after I'd insulted someone who has been on this board for a while, because when I insult someone, it means I actually care about their opinion.

For people I have no use for, or those I don't know enough about, you're just gonna have to go with the same standard bullshit that most others use.

As far as this grunt? Well........he's gonna have to post a bit more of his right wing batshittery in order to get any quality insults outta me.

You on the other hand Mr. Fisting for Nutz, can kindly kiss my ass you spooge slurping knob gobbler. Back to the streetcorner for you to blow strangers for candy bars and spare change.

The grunt hasn't distinguished himself in any way.........I don't even know if he's qualified to be a window licker on the short bus sans helmet.

 

[boedicca]

Let's review.

Last week the rightwingloons called school teachers terrorists.

This week they label them mobsters.

What next?

Would you like fries with that, sir?

Aw, c'mon. She'd rather have a side order of The Workers' Collective Noodles - topped with whatever Rob Lewis fees like serving today.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Typical liberal, resorts to name calling when the argument they throw out there has no merits.

Back in the day , there was nothing typical of Gaybikers name calling it was legendary he mixed his drunken back alley forays with gender bending incestual fantasies .It was something to behold.
He has been off his game for sometime. It is very sad.

 

[ABikerSailor]

First of all, it's "You're" or "You are", not 'You". If you wish to insult someone about there intelligence, at least learn proper grammar first.
Also, it is perfectly legal for the congress to change the laws, it is called the amendment process, if your cronies in Washington do not like the way things are, they can amend the law regarding it. Maybe you should be yelling at them, instead of sitting here trying to make feeble attempts at insulting someone who clearly has you defeated in this argument.
Also, your academic pedigree does not outweigh the strength of my argument.

Typical idiot response........you go after some perceived grammatical error when you have nothing to retort with.

Yes, the laws can be amended, but that's not what happened in the SC, they did a LEGAL ruling on it, of which many of the justices who voted in favor of it, were Bush Jr. appointees.

As far as changing the law? That's done by Congress, you know.....the House of Representatives and the Senate?

I see you really are a retarded little n00b.

Actually they challenged my intellect first, or did you miss that part? So therefore I was perfectly justified in raising the grammatical flag against them.
Also, the congress and senate cannot change the law by themselves and have to forward the bill for the presidents signature to finalize it.
Typical liberal, resorts to name calling when the argument they throw out there has no merits.
And also, if you read my post, I explained the amendment process so it's not like you just brought that to light here.
Maybe you should go back to college and tell them you need a crash course on reading comprehension.

Who the fuck is "they"? I sure didn't question your intellect until after you got stupid with your grammar lessons.

And..........it was the SC who ruled that corporations have the same rights as citizens, therefore paving the way for corporations to donate obscene amounts of cash to put in the politicians THEY want to put in. Congress (and therefore, your lame ass argument about amendments) had NOTHING to do with it.

Know what you call a Marine with half a brain? That's right......gifted.

Know what you call a Sailor with half a brain? That's right........Marine. Check your LES sportcheck, it says "Department of the Navy", not "Department of the Marines".

Your lack of brainpower is apparent, even to the most casual observer.

 

[grunt11b]

Typical idiot response........you go after some perceived grammatical error when you have nothing to retort with.

Yes, the laws can be amended, but that's not what happened in the SC, they did a LEGAL ruling on it, of which many of the justices who voted in favor of it, were Bush Jr. appointees.

As far as changing the law? That's done by Congress, you know.....the House of Representatives and the Senate?

I see you really are a retarded little n00b.

Actually they challenged my intellect first, or did you miss that part? So therefore I was perfectly justified in raising the grammatical flag against them.
Also, the congress and senate cannot change the law by themselves and have to forward the bill for the presidents signature to finalize it.
Typical liberal, resorts to name calling when the argument they throw out there has no merits.
And also, if you read my post, I explained the amendment process so it's not like you just brought that to light here.
Maybe you should go back to college and tell them you need a crash course on reading comprehension.

Who the fuck is "they"? I sure didn't question your intellect until after you got stupid with your grammar lessons.

And..........it was the SC who ruled that corporations have the same rights as citizens, therefore paving the way for corporations to donate obscene amounts of cash to put in the politicians THEY want to put in. Congress (and therefore, your lame ass argument about amendments) had NOTHING to do with it.

Know what you call a Marine with half a brain? That's right......gifted.

Know what you call a Sailor with half a brain? That's right........Marine. Check your LES sportcheck, it says "Department of the Navy", not "Department of the Marines".

Your lack of brainpower is apparent, even to the most casual observer.

Actually, my LES says "Department of Agriculture because I work for the Department of Justice. "Yes, the DOJ's checks are printed by the DOA".
I was never in the Marines so that kinda makes you look like an idiot.
Here ya go buddy, I'm here to help you out.
Alcoholics Anonymous :

 

[washamericom]

Let's review.

Last week the rightwingloons called school teachers terrorists.

This week they label them mobsters.

What next?

Would you like fries with that, sir?

a.b. will be serving you and your family french fries when you're on your way to a weekend ski vacation.

 

[Charles_Main]

When one party( union) uses it influence to put another party(political candidates) in a position where the second party is to negotiant a contract with the first party, leaving the taxpayer holding the bag?

Anti-trust.

Collusion.

Graft.

Monopoly.

what ob said, but collective bargaining leads to collective agreements.

ah but when the Union is Bargaining with Democrat appointed negotiators what you get is one sided agreements than Favor the union and ignore Economic Reality.

 

[Charles_Main]

Let's review.

Last week the rightwingloons called school teachers terrorists.

This week they label them mobsters.

What next?

Care to provide one shred of evidence of anyone calling them Terrorists?

 

[R.D.]

When one party( union) uses it influence to put another party(political candidates) in a position where the second party is to negotiant a contract with the first party, leaving the taxpayer holding the bag?

Payola at the expense of the taxpayer

 

[grunt11b]

I love this, it's nice to see more conservatives on the boards then before. For a long time on so many other boards I felt like I was the only conservative on there trying to talk any sense into people.