Darkwind
Diamond Member
- Jun 18, 2009
- 35,381
- 20,148
- 1,915
LOLOLOLOLOL
God I miss Bob.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Truth is, I hate the ruling.
But seeing as I capitalize on the advantages that the consitution offers, I accept the disadvantages as well.
Like those that say "you pay lots of money for those that use the free health care they get at ER's"...
And I say...
"that is the disadvantage of living in a society that allows me many freedoms and liberties. I prefer paying for the free ER for the less fortunate to use than to lose my freedom of choice"
I am not a hypocrite. I accept the bad in an effort to appreciate and enjoy the good.
Thank you for explaining where you stand. I also stand there. Where I differ is with the acceptance of things that are wrong. I accept the idea that people with abuse the system and cheat. But I do not accept that there isn't anything to be done about it.
reading Federalist 10 again.
I agree...but if "doing something about it" means that I lose liberties, I prefer not doing something about it.....except for what I personally do about it.
Ironically, all of the left and mosty if not all on the right hate the "pre existing condition" thing....but are you aware of why it is there?
Becuase people used to live without insurance until they needed it....so the insurance companies responded with "pre-exisiting" conditions.
So who was really in the wrong? Those that abused, or those that created a system to STOP the abuse....
Funny thing...I lost where I was going with that...but I guess making the point did not hurt.
Not really. If a Saudi person owns 49% of a company and doesn't like how we deal with anything Oil related, he can get HIS American elected.
Whats so wrong with that?
Wrong. The ruling was about political issues, not about political candidates.
Obviously, free speech is a foreign concept to liberals.
Whats to stop foreigners from swaying elections now. seriously, answer that please.
Not really. If a Saudi person owns 49% of a company and doesn't like how we deal with anything Oil related, he can get HIS American elected.
Whats so wrong with that?
Wrong. The ruling was about political issues, not about political candidates.
Obviously, free speech is a foreign concept to liberals.
Whats to stop foreigners from swaying elections now. seriously, answer that please.
Interesting, a Saudi Prince is the second biggest owner of Newscorp [Fox news].Embarassment for the Supreme Court
They will be held accountable in American History
Not really. If a Saudi person owns 49% of a company and doesn't like how we deal with anything Oil related, he can get HIS American elected.
Whats so wrong with that?
They already influence elections. They supported John Kerry and Barack Obama. They like appeasing idiots.what is really going to be cool for CMike is when al Quaida has the opportunity to afford some freespeech in the U.S and influence elections!
...as does our simpleton President.Embarassment for the Supreme Court
They will be held accountable in American History
Not really. If a Saudi person owns 49% of a company and doesn't like how we deal with anything Oil related, he can get HIS American elected.
Whats so wrong with that?
I see you are too lazy to read the ruling as well.
Pitiful how some people prefer to regurgitate what those NOT in the know tell them as opposed to doing a little reading.
Can you possibly contribute some substance to this conversation? Your catty comments do nothing to address the points made and serve simply as an indicator of your inadequacy. You need to learn to argue against the points and not against the pointers.Embarassment for the Supreme Court
They will be held accountable in American History
SO I guess the ruling was way too much for you to read.
Yes, it is a lot of legalese....but rest assured...the supreme court did not rule that foreign entities will be allowed to influence elections.
And yes...I read it....and I read the original ruling...and I read how the parts of the original ruling that applied to foreign entities was untouched and still 100% in effect.
And in no way does it open the door to campaign contributions from corporations be they national or international.
are you this big a blowhard in real life?
It would have been nicer had it happened before the SOTU address.One of these days it would be nice if the people who are so upset over the decision actually read it
Perhaps Cardinal Red and some pointy, gold hats that stick up above the crowd.One of these days it would be nice if the people who are so upset over the decision actually read it
I not only read the ruling, but I read the original ruling.
I am not overly fond of the ruling but I support the role of the SCOTUS and what they decide...whether I agree or not.
Although I would like to suggest a different color robe.
Nothing. They do it with increasing fervor year 'round. Foreign money supported Obama's war chest.Not really. If a Saudi person owns 49% of a company and doesn't like how we deal with anything Oil related, he can get HIS American elected.
Whats so wrong with that?
Wrong. The ruling was about political issues, not about political candidates.
Obviously, free speech is a foreign concept to liberals.
Whats to stop foreigners from swaying elections now. seriously, answer that please.
They already influence elections. They supported John Kerry and Barack Obama. They like appeasing idiots.what is really going to be cool for CMike is when al Quaida has the opportunity to afford some freespeech in the U.S and influence elections!
...as does our simpleton President.I see you are too lazy to read the ruling as well.
Pitiful how some people prefer to regurgitate what those NOT in the know tell them as opposed to doing a little reading.
Can you possibly contribute some substance to this conversation? Your catty comments do nothing to address the points made and serve simply as an indicator of your inadequacy. You need to learn to argue against the points and not against the pointers.
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
It would have been nicer had it happened before the SOTU address.
Perhaps Cardinal Red and some pointy, gold hats that stick up above the crowd.
Nothing. They do it with increasing fervor year 'round. Foreign money supported Obama's war chest.Wrong. The ruling was about political issues, not about political candidates.
Obviously, free speech is a foreign concept to liberals.
Whats to stop foreigners from swaying elections now. seriously, answer that please.
That wasn't the question. The question was could corporations use money directly from the company's accounts to pay for political ads. Up until the decision, companies could only set up PAC's and could not use money directly from the company's accounts.
UBS - About usThey already influence elections. They supported John Kerry and Barack Obama. They like appeasing idiots.what is really going to be cool for CMike is when al Quaida has the opportunity to afford some freespeech in the U.S and influence elections!
...as does our simpleton President.
Can you possibly contribute some substance to this conversation? Your catty comments do nothing to address the points made and serve simply as an indicator of your inadequacy. You need to learn to argue against the points and not against the pointers.
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
It would have been nicer had it happened before the SOTU address.
Perhaps Cardinal Red and some pointy, gold hats that stick up above the crowd.
Nothing. They do it with increasing fervor year 'round. Foreign money supported Obama's war chest.Whats to stop foreigners from swaying elections now. seriously, answer that please.
Got any proof?