What the Supreme Court Actually Ruled

[Darkwind]

The liberal god has spoken, thus it must be true.

YouTube - Funniest Movie Line Ever

LOLOLOLOLOL

God I miss Bob.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

The pre-existing thing is there to make extra profit.

Profit abuse is what it is all about. There are many companies and a few industries that turn a profit in ethical and moral ways. It can and is done on a daily basis.

We as a society get to set the rules that govern a market. A free market governed by an invisible hand is nothing but a game played with smoke and mirrors.

thanks for the rational and intelloigent replies.

D.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

The law.

 

[CMike]

Once again the ruling wasn't about particular elections, it was about political positions on specific issues.

 

[CMike]

One of these days it would be nice if the people who are so upset over the decision actually read it

I couldn't agree more.

I posted the ruling, all people have to do is read it.

 

[CMike]

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.

The ruling wasn't about elections. It was about political issues.

 

[Political Junky]

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?

Interesting, a Saudi Prince is the second biggest owner of Newscorp [Fox news].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation
Shareholders

* In August 2005 the Murdoch family owned only about 29% of the company. However, nearly all of these shares were voting shares, and Rupert Murdoch retained effective control of the company. Nonetheless, John Malone of Liberty Media had built up a large stake, with about half of the shares being voting shares. Therefore, in November 2006, News Corporation announced its intention to transfer its 38.5 per cent managing interest in DirecTV Group to John Malone's Liberty Media; in return it bought back Liberty's 16.3% shares in News Corp., giving Murdoch tighter control of the latter firm.[18] Murdoch sold 17.5 million class A shares in December 2007.[19]

* Prince Alwaleed bin Talal al-Saud of Saudi Arabia, through his Kingdom Holding Company, owns 7% of News Corp.'s shares, making Kingdom Holdings the second largest shareholder. [20][21] [22]

 

[asaratis]

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!

They already influence elections. They supported John Kerry and Barack Obama. They like appeasing idiots.

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.

...as does our simpleton President.

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?

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.

One of these days it would be nice if the people who are so upset over the decision actually read it

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

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.

Perhaps Cardinal Red and some pointy, gold hats that stick up above the crowd.

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.

Nothing. They do it with increasing fervor year 'round. Foreign money supported Obama's war chest.

 

[Darkwind]

Profit abuse?

WTF is profit abuse?

 

[beowolfe]

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.

 

[beowolfe]

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!

They already influence elections. They supported John Kerry and Barack Obama. They like appeasing idiots.

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.

...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.

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.

Nothing. They do it with increasing fervor year 'round. Foreign money supported Obama's war chest.

Got any proof?

 

[CMike]

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.

How about ads against higher taxes? That would be a worthwhile cause that would directly affect a company.

 

[asaratis]

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!

They already influence elections. They supported John Kerry and Barack Obama. They like appeasing idiots.

...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.

Whats to stop foreigners from swaying elections now. seriously, answer that please.

Nothing. They do it with increasing fervor year 'round. Foreign money supported Obama's war chest.

Got any proof?

UBS - About us

If that's not a foreign corporation, I'll stand corrected. I believe they funneled to him over a half million dollars.

 

[CMike]

I apologize I made a mistake. I posted the wrong ruling.


08-205 Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n (01/21/10)

The issue is that Citizens United, a non-profit corporation, wanted to post anti-Hillary ads.

The US Supreme Court found that they could.

That newspapers are part of corporations too, and they can put in ads expressing their opinions, and that there is no basis in the law that allows some corporations the right to express their opinons in terms of political ads while others can't.