How is austerity doing in Europe

[RKMBrown]

OK. got it. Your opinion is that corporations should have all of the rights of a natural person. Mine is that they should not. The issue is that something like 80% of our population disagrees with you. So, do you agree with democracy?? Should we follow their desire, or simply ignore them??

Why should a person give up their rights when they join a group of persons?

What right did you think that they were giving up??? They still have EXACTLY the same rights after joining as before.

You said above that corporations should not have all of the rights of a natural person. Your basis for this was democracy, aka. tyranny of the majority. Thus, people should loose their rights when they join particular groups of people called corporations based on a 51% opinion. Then you ask me what right I think you want them to give up when they join a corporation. I thought the discussion was about free speech. You know, the first amendment that restricts government's ability to restrict our speech. I find your question, odd.

 

[Rshermr]

OK. got it. Your opinion is that corporations should have all of the rights of a natural person. Mine is that they should not. The issue is that something like 80% of our population disagrees with you. So, do you agree with democracy?? Should we follow their desire, or simply ignore them??

Why should a person give up their rights when they join a group of persons?

What right did you think that they were giving up??? They still have EXACTLY the same rights after joining as before.

You said above that corporations should not have all of the rights of a natural person. Your basis for this was democracy, aka. tyranny of the majority. Thus, people should loose their rights when they join particular groups of people called corporations based on a 51% opinion. Then you ask me what right I think you want them to give up when they join a corporation. I thought the discussion was about free speech. You know, the first amendment that restricts government's ability to restrict our speech. I find your question, odd.

Sorry. Those natural persons who join corporations still have their prior rights. They loose nothing.

Now, if they gain something from a corporations rights of free speech, as provided them by the Citizens United decision, you could say they GAIN rights by "joining" a corporation. So, in effect, they gain rights that the rest of us do not have. So, I am sure you think that is a good idea.

Sorry you think my question is odd. It is simply a valid question. You suggested that those "joining" a corporation loose some rights. I know of none. And apparently neither do you.

 

[RKMBrown]

OK. got it. Your opinion is that corporations should have all of the rights of a natural person. Mine is that they should not. The issue is that something like 80% of our population disagrees with you. So, do you agree with democracy?? Should we follow their desire, or simply ignore them??

What right did you think that they were giving up??? They still have EXACTLY the same rights after joining as before.

You said above that corporations should not have all of the rights of a natural person. Your basis for this was democracy, aka. tyranny of the majority. Thus, people should loose their rights when they join particular groups of people called corporations based on a 51% opinion. Then you ask me what right I think you want them to give up when they join a corporation. I thought the discussion was about free speech. You know, the first amendment that restricts government's ability to restrict our speech. I find your question, odd.

Sorry. Those natural persons who join corporations still have their prior rights. They loose nothing.

Now, if they gain something from a corporations rights of free speech, as provided them by the Citizens United decision, you could say they GAIN rights by "joining" a corporation. So, in effect, they gain rights that the rest of us do not have. So, I am sure you think that is a good idea.

Sorry you think my question is odd. It is simply a valid question. You suggested that those "joining" a corporation loose some rights. I know of none. And apparently neither do you.

Your belief that a corporation can speak is nutz. Can you provide a link of a corporation speaking?

A corporation is not a person. A corporation is a non living entity. A contract specified by incorporation papers agreed to between the owners. A contract cannot speak any more than a piece of paper can speak. Corporations can't speak. People who represent corporations most certainly can and do speak and their speech is protected by the first amendment, irregardless of their affiliation with particular corporations. And now based on the CU decision, irregardless of where the funding comes from for their speech, be it from a union or corporation.

 

[Rshermr]

You said above that corporations should not have all of the rights of a natural person. Your basis for this was democracy, aka. tyranny of the majority. Thus, people should loose their rights when they join particular groups of people called corporations based on a 51% opinion. Then you ask me what right I think you want them to give up when they join a corporation. I thought the discussion was about free speech. You know, the first amendment that restricts government's ability to restrict our speech. I find your question, odd.

Sorry. Those natural persons who join corporations still have their prior rights. They loose nothing.

Now, if they gain something from a corporations rights of free speech, as provided them by the Citizens United decision, you could say they GAIN rights by "joining" a corporation. So, in effect, they gain rights that the rest of us do not have. So, I am sure you think that is a good idea.

Sorry you think my question is odd. It is simply a valid question. You suggested that those "joining" a corporation loose some rights. I know of none. And apparently neither do you.

Your belief that a corporation can speak is nutz. Can you provide a link of a corporation speaking?

A corporation is not a person. A corporation is a non living entity. A contract specified by incorporation papers agreed to between the owners. A contract cannot speak any more than a piece of paper can speak. Corporations can't speak. People who represent corporations most certainly can and do speak and their speech is protected by the first amendment, irregardless of their affiliation with particular corporations. And now based on the CU decision, irregardless of where the funding comes from for their speech, be it from a union or corporation.

The ruling, me boy, was that, in the case of corporations, MONEY IS SPEECH and therefor protected by the First Amendment. So, now please try to understand, I also believe that corporations can not speak. Because they can not. BUT, because of CU, they can and have spent unlimited money. Which they could not before. Because it has been found by the supreme court, through CU, that corporate money spent on political issues IS FREE SPEECH.

And I could provide a link. But you can find it yourself. Google citizens united corporate speech.

 

[RKMBrown]

Sorry. Those natural persons who join corporations still have their prior rights. They loose nothing.

Now, if they gain something from a corporations rights of free speech, as provided them by the Citizens United decision, you could say they GAIN rights by "joining" a corporation. So, in effect, they gain rights that the rest of us do not have. So, I am sure you think that is a good idea.

Sorry you think my question is odd. It is simply a valid question. You suggested that those "joining" a corporation loose some rights. I know of none. And apparently neither do you.

Your belief that a corporation can speak is nutz. Can you provide a link of a corporation speaking?

A corporation is not a person. A corporation is a non living entity. A contract specified by incorporation papers agreed to between the owners. A contract cannot speak any more than a piece of paper can speak. Corporations can't speak. People who represent corporations most certainly can and do speak and their speech is protected by the first amendment, irregardless of their affiliation with particular corporations. And now based on the CU decision, irregardless of where the funding comes from for their speech, be it from a union or corporation.

The ruling, me boy, was that, in the case of corporations, MONEY IS SPEECH and therefor protected by the First Amendment. So, now please try to understand, I also believe that corporations can not speak. Because they can not. BUT, because of CU, they can and have spent unlimited money. Which they could not before. Because it has been found by the supreme court, through CU, that corporate money spent on political issues IS FREE SPEECH.

And I could provide a link. But you can find it yourself. Google citizens united corporate speech.

I've read it in the past and do not recall any law declaring that money is speech. No corporation has unlimited money. I have no idea where you got that idea from. What I remember reading was that the very unconstitutional law that prohibited people from spending their own damn money while exercising lawful free speech, simply because they are using money from a corporate account, was thrown out.

 

[Rshermr]

Your belief that a corporation can speak is nutz. Can you provide a link of a corporation speaking?

A corporation is not a person. A corporation is a non living entity. A contract specified by incorporation papers agreed to between the owners. A contract cannot speak any more than a piece of paper can speak. Corporations can't speak. People who represent corporations most certainly can and do speak and their speech is protected by the first amendment, irregardless of their affiliation with particular corporations. And now based on the CU decision, irregardless of where the funding comes from for their speech, be it from a union or corporation.

The ruling, me boy, was that, in the case of corporations, MONEY IS SPEECH and therefor protected by the First Amendment. So, now please try to understand, I also believe that corporations can not speak. Because they can not. BUT, because of CU, they can and have spent unlimited money. Which they could not before. Because it has been found by the supreme court, through CU, that corporate money spent on political issues IS FREE SPEECH.

And I could provide a link. But you can find it yourself. Google citizens united corporate speech.

I've read it in the past and do not recall any law declaring that money is speech. No corporation has unlimited money. I have no idea where you got that idea from. What I remember reading was that the very unconstitutional law that prohibited people from spending their own damn money while exercising lawful free speech, simply because they are using money from a corporate account, was thrown out.

That would be because that is what you choose to think. Good for you. Perhaps ignorance is bliss. Then you will have, me boy, bliss in spades.
Here is a quote from a republican you may have heard of:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) continued his harsh criticism of the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling this week, calling it the bench's "worst decision ever."

“They said money is free speech. Since when is money free speech?” McCain asked a crowd at an event put on by the Oxford Union at the University of Oxford, according to the Oxonian Globalist. “Money is money.”

The Supreme Court's 2010 ruling, which allowed corporations, unions and individuals to pour unlimited amounts of money into elections through super PACs, has elicited strong responses from McCain in the past. Earlier this year he predicted that the unfettered influx of money, often from undisclosed sources, would lead to "huge scandals" in upcoming elections.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/12/john-mccain-citizens-united_n_1960996.html

 

[AmazonTania]

SI really don't know what you are trying to say here, but I don't see what the 14th amendment has to do with this. I don't know why you decided to bring it up.

You brought up the cases that were ALL ABOUT THE 14th. They were NOT about the 1st amendment. That would be why, me dear. OBVIOUSLY. Again, and please try to concentrate, those cases were about the ability to sue and to enter into contracts. Sorry you can not understand this.

I see where your issue lies. You've combined your legal understanding with your historical understanding, mixed in with your comprehension and created one abomination in terms of logical reasoning.

First of all, I only brought up one Supreme Court Case: Dartmouth College vs. Woodward. Supreme court cases needs to be referenced by name. If I never mentioned the case by name, I never brought it up.

Secondly, Dartmouth College vs Woodward were tried well before the creation of the 14th amendment. As well as a few other court cases affirming Corporate Personhood.

The main laws establishing the ability to enter contracts (and many other contract laws) are establish in the Uniform Commercial Code Articles 1 (General Provisions), 2 (Sales) and 9 (Secured Transactions)

It would help you enormously if you look through those.

And citizens united, again, was about free speech. Allowing corporate money to be speech.

So, what you are saying is that because corporations got decesions allowing them rights as citizens related to doing business, that they should also have First Amendment rights to spend unlimited amounts anonymously on political issues because they have the right of speech?? Just wonder where the hell your head is.

That's not anything close to what I said. Your comprehension is very bad. Refer to earlier post. I'm through repeating myself.

So, apparently you did not read the information provided. Again, you are unwilling to listen to anything that does not fit in your desired agenda. No, me dear. Since corporations are not natural persons, they did not, prior to Citizens United, have the rights that the supreme court decided to give corporations. That was indeed. NEW LAW. It was not decided in lower courts, and given to the supreme court to decide if it was correct. It was COMPLETELY BROUGHT UP AND DECIDED IN THE SUPREME COURT.

Your history is very bad. Corporations were always allowed to contribute to political campaigns up until the early 1900's. There were many limits on campaign financing from corporations and unions around this time period, but many of these laws were unenforceable and just really unenforced. It wasn't until the Federal Election Commission Act of 1974 which eliminated corporate/union financing completely.

Before the FEC, you've always had corporations donating to political campaigns since US inception. Corporations are people. This is established in Title 1, Chapter 1 of the US Code and also established by the Supreme Court cases reaffirming Corporate Personhood. US Congress must be in compliance with the US Court decisions. Corporations are persons. That's not debatable.

Now, that, me dear, is an excellent example of how to lie without actually saying anything that is not at least partially true. You must know, assuming you have any brain activity, that the issue IS about giving money to pac's. Corporations do not want to be seen as giving huge amounts to corporations. BY GIVING TO PAC'S, THEIR DONATIONS ARE ANONYMOUS. Even you have to admit this. Well, maybe not, who knows what you are willing to say.

Um, no.

(3) A candidate or committee receiving an anonymous cash contribution in excess of $50 shall promptly dispose of the amount over $50. The amount over $50 may be used for any lawful purpose unrelated to any Federal election, campaign, or candidate.

11 CFR 110.4 - Contributions in the name of another; cash contributions (2 U.S.C. 441f, 441g, 432(c)(2)). | Title 11 - Federal Elections | Code of Federal Regulations | LII / Legal Information Institute

I suppose that is as close to an admission that there are no nations that allow unlimited corporate contributions to political entities as we will get from you. Yes, it is indeed true, only in the us can corporations give unlimited contributions. And you would be aware if you simply did a search on the subject.

You're reading things you want to read again. I said it depends case by case, nation by nation. I am not aware of any particular laws limiting corporations in other parts of the world. Until I see the actual statute in their books, I can only assume there is no law. I don't have time to look through hundreds of pages of code for other nations I don't inhabit. If you want to look for the laws, be my guess.

In the United States, there are already laws in place limiting corporate contributions. If you are an individual, there is already a limit on the amount of money you can donate, especially if you donate anonymous.

And yes, they can provide funds just as a regular person could. AS A RESULT OF THE DECISION BY THE SUPREME COURT REGARDING CITIZENS UNITED IN 2010.

I've always been able to do this throughout US history, up until the 60's and 70's. You really need to wise up.

So, you were talking about what year, me dear???
Consider this NY Times quote:

And?

OK. got it. Your opinion is that corporations should have all of the rights of a natural person. Mine is that they should not. The issue is that something like 80% of our population disagrees with you. So, do you agree with democracy?? Should we follow their desire, or simply ignore them??

It's not a matter of opinion. That's the law. Your opinions are irrelevant. Corporations are merely individuals, and democracies must be responsible to both majorities and individuals. Most of all, individual rights must be protected, even if the majority wants something else.

Corporations are persons with legal rights and legal personality. That's not debatable.

 

[RKMBrown]

The ruling, me boy, was that, in the case of corporations, MONEY IS SPEECH and therefor protected by the First Amendment. So, now please try to understand, I also believe that corporations can not speak. Because they can not. BUT, because of CU, they can and have spent unlimited money. Which they could not before. Because it has been found by the supreme court, through CU, that corporate money spent on political issues IS FREE SPEECH.

And I could provide a link. But you can find it yourself. Google citizens united corporate speech.

I've read it in the past and do not recall any law declaring that money is speech. No corporation has unlimited money. I have no idea where you got that idea from. What I remember reading was that the very unconstitutional law that prohibited people from spending their own damn money while exercising lawful free speech, simply because they are using money from a corporate account, was thrown out.

That would be because that is what you choose to think. Good for you. Perhaps ignorance is bliss. Then you will have, me boy, bliss in spades.
Here is a quote from a republican you may have heard of:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) continued his harsh criticism of the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling this week, calling it the bench's "worst decision ever."

“They said money is free speech. Since when is money free speech?” McCain asked a crowd at an event put on by the Oxford Union at the University of Oxford, according to the Oxonian Globalist. “Money is money.”

The Supreme Court's 2010 ruling, which allowed corporations, unions and individuals to pour unlimited amounts of money into elections through super PACs, has elicited strong responses from McCain in the past. Earlier this year he predicted that the unfettered influx of money, often from undisclosed sources, would lead to "huge scandals" in upcoming elections.
John McCain: Citizens United Is 'Worst Decision Ever' ... 'Money Is Money,' Not Free Speech

Yeah well McCain bless his socialist soul, is not a conservative. And he has no problem restricting our rights. That CU law was his baby. No surprise then that he was upset they flushed it down the toilet where it belonged.

 

[Rshermr]

I've read it in the past and do not recall any law declaring that money is speech. No corporation has unlimited money. I have no idea where you got that idea from. What I remember reading was that the very unconstitutional law that prohibited people from spending their own damn money while exercising lawful free speech, simply because they are using money from a corporate account, was thrown out.

That would be because that is what you choose to think. Good for you. Perhaps ignorance is bliss. Then you will have, me boy, bliss in spades.
Here is a quote from a republican you may have heard of:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) continued his harsh criticism of the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling this week, calling it the bench's "worst decision ever."

“They said money is free speech. Since when is money free speech?” McCain asked a crowd at an event put on by the Oxford Union at the University of Oxford, according to the Oxonian Globalist. “Money is money.”

The Supreme Court's 2010 ruling, which allowed corporations, unions and individuals to pour unlimited amounts of money into elections through super PACs, has elicited strong responses from McCain in the past. Earlier this year he predicted that the unfettered influx of money, often from undisclosed sources, would lead to "huge scandals" in upcoming elections.
John McCain: Citizens United Is 'Worst Decision Ever' ... 'Money Is Money,' Not Free Speech

Yeah well McCain bless his socialist soul, is not a conservative. And he has no problem restricting our rights. That CU law was his baby. No surprise then that he was upset they flushed it down the toilet where it belonged.

Wow. That may be one of the most ignorant posts yet. But glad to know you believe he is a socialist. Proves you do not know what a socialist is. And, me boy, HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CU. AT all. Jesus. Have you always been that ignorant, or have you been working on it??? You are very, very confused.

 

[RKMBrown]

That would be because that is what you choose to think. Good for you. Perhaps ignorance is bliss. Then you will have, me boy, bliss in spades.
Here is a quote from a republican you may have heard of:

Yeah well McCain bless his socialist soul, is not a conservative. And he has no problem restricting our rights. That CU law was his baby. No surprise then that he was upset they flushed it down the toilet where it belonged.

Wow. That may be one of the most ignorant posts yet. But glad to know you believe he is a socialist. Proves you do not know what a socialist is. And, me boy, HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CU. AT all. Jesus. Have you always been that ignorant, or have you been working on it??? You are very, very confused.

Dufus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act, Pub.L. 107–155, 116 Stat. 81, enacted March 27, 2002, H.R. 2356) is a United States federal law that amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which regulates the financing of political campaigns. Its chief sponsors were Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and John McCain (R-AZ). The law became effective on 6 November 2002, and the new legal limits became effective on January 1, 2003.[1]

As noted in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a United States Supreme Court ruling on the BCRA, the Act was designed to address two issues:

The increased role of soft money in campaign financing, by prohibiting national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits, even for state and local races or issue discussion;
The proliferation of issue advocacy ads, by defining as "electioneering communications" broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election, and prohibiting any such ad paid for by a corporation (including non-profit issue organizations such as Right to Life or the Environmental Defense Fund) or paid for by an unincorporated entity using any corporate or union general treasury funds. The decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission overturns this provision, but not the ban on foreign corporations or foreign nationals in decisions regarding political spending.[2]

 

[Rshermr]

Yeah well McCain bless his socialist soul, is not a conservative. And he has no problem restricting our rights. That CU law was his baby. No surprise then that he was upset they flushed it down the toilet where it belonged.

Wow. That may be one of the most ignorant posts yet. But glad to know you believe he is a socialist. Proves you do not know what a socialist is. And, me boy, HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CU. AT all. Jesus. Have you always been that ignorant, or have you been working on it??? You are very, very confused.

You are an ignoramus.

Thanks. Coming from you, that is a compliment.

 

[RKMBrown]

Wow. That may be one of the most ignorant posts yet. But glad to know you believe he is a socialist. Proves you do not know what a socialist is. And, me boy, HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CU. AT all. Jesus. Have you always been that ignorant, or have you been working on it??? You are very, very confused.

You are an ignoramus.

Thanks. Coming from you, that is a compliment.

 

[Rshermr]

You are an ignoramus.

Thanks. Coming from you, that is a compliment.

Out of words, eh. Well, it is ok. Ignorance is just a component of being a congenital idiot. Really, me boy, it is not your fault. Just plain bad luck.

 

[RKMBrown]

Out of words, eh. Well, it is ok. Ignorance is just a component of being a congenital idiot. Really, me boy, it is not your fault. Just plain bad luck.

You are a pea brained dufus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biparti...ign_Reform_Act

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act, Pub.L. 107–155, 116 Stat. 81, enacted March 27, 2002, H.R. 2356) is a United States federal law that amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which regulates the financing of political campaigns. Its chief sponsors were Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and John McCain (R-AZ). The law became effective on 6 November 2002, and the new legal limits became effective on January 1, 2003.[1]

As noted in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a United States Supreme Court ruling on the BCRA, the Act was designed to address two issues:

The increased role of soft money in campaign financing, by prohibiting national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits, even for state and local races or issue discussion;
The proliferation of issue advocacy ads, by defining as "electioneering communications" broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election, and prohibiting any such ad paid for by a corporation (including non-profit issue organizations such as Right to Life or the Environmental Defense Fund) or paid for by an unincorporated entity using any corporate or union general treasury funds. The decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission overturns this provision, but not the ban on foreign corporations or foreign nationals in decisions regarding political spending.[2]

 

[Rshermr]

Out of words, eh. Well, it is ok. Ignorance is just a component of being a congenital idiot. Really, me boy, it is not your fault. Just plain bad luck.

You are a pea brained dufus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biparti...ign_Reform_Act

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act, Pub.L. 107–155, 116 Stat. 81, enacted March 27, 2002, H.R. 2356) is a United States federal law that amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which regulates the financing of political campaigns. Its chief sponsors were Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and John McCain (R-AZ). The law became effective on 6 November 2002, and the new legal limits became effective on January 1, 2003.[1]

As noted in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a United States Supreme Court ruling on the BCRA, the Act was designed to address two issues:

The increased role of soft money in campaign financing, by prohibiting national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits, even for state and local races or issue discussion;
The proliferation of issue advocacy ads, by defining as "electioneering communications" broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election, and prohibiting any such ad paid for by a corporation (including non-profit issue organizations such as Right to Life or the Environmental Defense Fund) or paid for by an unincorporated entity using any corporate or union general treasury funds. The decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission overturns this provision, but not the ban on foreign corporations or foreign nationals in decisions regarding political spending.[2]

Wow. Nice, me boy. You can use the google, and cut and paste. I am impressed. Let's see what this has to do with your crowning statement. You said:

Yeah well McCain bless his socialist soul, is not a conservative. And he has no problem restricting our rights. That CU law was his baby. No surprise then that he was upset they flushed it down the toilet where it belonged.

Socialist soul.

Interesting. So if you knew what socialism is, you would be able to evaluate your statement and understand it has NO basis in fact. Which is why you will be unable to find any case where the guy ever supported the gov ownership of the means of production or distribution of goods and services.
Stupid statement number 1.

That CU law was his baby.

Now, here is the thing, me boy. CU stands for citizens united. He had no part in that legislation, at all. He never supported it. Ever. So, perhaps you would like to explain why it would be "his baby". You could definitely say that the McCain Feingold act was his baby. Can you see why, me boy?? But that legislation was partially overturned by the Supreme Court when it found to SUPPORT Citizens United. Now, try to understand this. Citizens United was a conservative group that did not include McCain.
So, congratulations, you just said another thing that has no basis in the real world.
Stupid Statement number 2.

No surprise then that he was upset they flushed it down the toilet where it belonged.

This is a really cool one. You see, they did not flush Citizens United down the toilet. Though a strong majority would agree with you that that was where it belonged. You see, me poor ignorant con tool, they found FOR Citizens United. And it is now LAW.
Again, your statement has no basis in the real world.
Stupid statement number 3.

That is a lot of stupid statements for one short paragraph, dipshit. But, if you can read and understand what you just posted, you will have learned something. I try so hard to help you.
And it makes you so angry. Just symptoms of being a congenital idiot. Really, me boy, it is not your fault. Just bad luck. Maybe you should go away and play with your beads.

 

[RKMBrown]

Out of words, eh. Well, it is ok. Ignorance is just a component of being a congenital idiot. Really, me boy, it is not your fault. Just plain bad luck.

You are a pea brained dufus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biparti...ign_Reform_Act

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act, Pub.L. 107–155, 116 Stat. 81, enacted March 27, 2002, H.R. 2356) is a United States federal law that amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which regulates the financing of political campaigns. Its chief sponsors were Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and John McCain (R-AZ). The law became effective on 6 November 2002, and the new legal limits became effective on January 1, 2003.[1]

As noted in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a United States Supreme Court ruling on the BCRA, the Act was designed to address two issues:

The increased role of soft money in campaign financing, by prohibiting national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits, even for state and local races or issue discussion;
The proliferation of issue advocacy ads, by defining as "electioneering communications" broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election, and prohibiting any such ad paid for by a corporation (including non-profit issue organizations such as Right to Life or the Environmental Defense Fund) or paid for by an unincorporated entity using any corporate or union general treasury funds. The decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission overturns this provision, but not the ban on foreign corporations or foreign nationals in decisions regarding political spending.[2]

Wow. Nice, me boy. You can use the google, and cut and paste. I am impressed. Let's see what this has to do with your crowning statement. You said:


Interesting. So if you knew what socialism is, you would be able to evaluate your statement and understand it has NO basis in fact. Which is why you will be unable to find any case where the guy ever supported the gov ownership of the means of production or distribution of goods and services.
Stupid statement number 1.

That CU law was his baby.

Now, here is the thing, me boy. CU stands for citizens united. He had no part in that legislation, at all. He never supported it. Ever. So, perhaps you would like to explain why it would be "his baby". You could definitely say that the McCain Feingold act was his baby. Can you see why, me boy?? But that legislation was partially overturned by the Supreme Court when it found to SUPPORT Citizens United. Now, try to understand this. Citizens United was a conservative group that did not include McCain.
So, congratulations, you just said another thing that has no basis in the real world.
Stupid Statement number 2.

No surprise then that he was upset they flushed it down the toilet where it belonged.

This is a really cool one. You see, they did not flush Citizens United down the toilet. Though a strong majority would agree with you that that was where it belonged. You see, me poor ignorant con tool, they found FOR Citizens United. And it is now LAW.
Again, your statement has no basis in the real world.
Stupid statement number 3.

That is a lot of stupid statements for one short paragraph, dipshit. But, if you can read and understand what you just posted, you will have learned something. I try so hard to help you.
And it makes you so angry. Just symptoms of being a congenital idiot. Really, me boy, it is not your fault. Just bad luck. Maybe you should go away and play with your beads.

The issue in the CU case was the law I cited, this IS the law that McCain authored. The result of the SCOTUS decision in the CU case was to change law I referenced. When I referred to the CU law it was in reference to TO THE CU ISSUE you were talking about, YOU IGNORAMUS. How stupid can you possibly be, to think I was referring to CU as a law? What the hell are you on, meth? Are you ten years old? Does you mommy know you are on the internet? Do you eat your own shit or do you flush?

McCain is widely known in the republican party as the farthest left (on social issues) of all republicans. McCain is in fact further left than most democrats. McCain sides with democrats so often that when he "accidentally" walked into one of their closed door sessions, the Democrats erupted in applause.

 

[Rshermr]

You are a pea brained dufus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biparti...ign_Reform_Act

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act, Pub.L. 107–155, 116 Stat. 81, enacted March 27, 2002, H.R. 2356) is a United States federal law that amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which regulates the financing of political campaigns. Its chief sponsors were Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and John McCain (R-AZ). The law became effective on 6 November 2002, and the new legal limits became effective on January 1, 2003.[1]

As noted in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a United States Supreme Court ruling on the BCRA, the Act was designed to address two issues:

The increased role of soft money in campaign financing, by prohibiting national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits, even for state and local races or issue discussion;
The proliferation of issue advocacy ads, by defining as "electioneering communications" broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election, and prohibiting any such ad paid for by a corporation (including non-profit issue organizations such as Right to Life or the Environmental Defense Fund) or paid for by an unincorporated entity using any corporate or union general treasury funds. The decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission overturns this provision, but not the ban on foreign corporations or foreign nationals in decisions regarding political spending.[2]

Wow. Nice, me boy. You can use the google, and cut and paste. I am impressed. Let's see what this has to do with your crowning statement. You said:


Interesting. So if you knew what socialism is, you would be able to evaluate your statement and understand it has NO basis in fact. Which is why you will be unable to find any case where the guy ever supported the gov ownership of the means of production or distribution of goods and services.
Stupid statement number 1.

Now, here is the thing, me boy. CU stands for citizens united. He had no part in that legislation, at all. He never supported it. Ever. So, perhaps you would like to explain why it would be "his baby". You could definitely say that the McCain Feingold act was his baby. Can you see why, me boy?? But that legislation was partially overturned by the Supreme Court when it found to SUPPORT Citizens United. Now, try to understand this. Citizens United was a conservative group that did not include McCain.
So, congratulations, you just said another thing that has no basis in the real world.
Stupid Statement number 2.

No surprise then that he was upset they flushed it down the toilet where it belonged.

This is a really cool one. You see, they did not flush Citizens United down the toilet. Though a strong majority would agree with you that that was where it belonged. You see, me poor ignorant con tool, they found FOR Citizens United. And it is now LAW.
Again, your statement has no basis in the real world.
Stupid statement number 3.

That is a lot of stupid statements for one short paragraph, dipshit. But, if you can read and understand what you just posted, you will have learned something. I try so hard to help you.
And it makes you so angry. Just symptoms of being a congenital idiot. Really, me boy, it is not your fault. Just bad luck. Maybe you should go away and play with your beads.

The issue in the CU case was the law I cited, this IS the law that McCain authored. The result of the SCOTUS decision in the CU case was to change law I referenced. When I referred to the CU law it was in reference to TO THE CU ISSUE you were talking about, YOU IGNORAMUS. How stupid can you possibly be, to think I was referring to CU as a law? What the hell are you on, meth? Are you ten years old? Does you mommy know you are on the internet? Do you eat your own shit or do you flush?

McCain is widely known in the republican party as the farthest left (on social issues) of all republicans. McCain is in fact further left than most democrats. McCain sides with democrats so often that when he "accidentally" walked into one of their closed door sessions, the Democrats erupted in applause.

Honestly, me boy. We all know what you said. It is ok. Congenital Idiocy entails massive ignorance. It is a mental illness. And really not your fault.

 

[Rshermr]

The issue of the Citizens United case was not McCain Feingold. That was simply a law that was in the way and they found that law to be unconstitutional. The issue, me boy, was what SCOTUS decided they wanted to adjudicate, which was whether corporate money is speech. And they found that it was.
Try google. And try to actually read. Jesus.

 

[RKMBrown]

Wow. Nice, me boy. You can use the google, and cut and paste. I am impressed. Let's see what this has to do with your crowning statement. You said:


Interesting. So if you knew what socialism is, you would be able to evaluate your statement and understand it has NO basis in fact. Which is why you will be unable to find any case where the guy ever supported the gov ownership of the means of production or distribution of goods and services.
Stupid statement number 1.

Now, here is the thing, me boy. CU stands for citizens united. He had no part in that legislation, at all. He never supported it. Ever. So, perhaps you would like to explain why it would be "his baby". You could definitely say that the McCain Feingold act was his baby. Can you see why, me boy?? But that legislation was partially overturned by the Supreme Court when it found to SUPPORT Citizens United. Now, try to understand this. Citizens United was a conservative group that did not include McCain.
So, congratulations, you just said another thing that has no basis in the real world.
Stupid Statement number 2.


This is a really cool one. You see, they did not flush Citizens United down the toilet. Though a strong majority would agree with you that that was where it belonged. You see, me poor ignorant con tool, they found FOR Citizens United. And it is now LAW.
Again, your statement has no basis in the real world.
Stupid statement number 3.

That is a lot of stupid statements for one short paragraph, dipshit. But, if you can read and understand what you just posted, you will have learned something. I try so hard to help you.
And it makes you so angry. Just symptoms of being a congenital idiot. Really, me boy, it is not your fault. Just bad luck. Maybe you should go away and play with your beads.

The issue in the CU case was the law I cited, this IS the law that McCain authored. The result of the SCOTUS decision in the CU case was to change law I referenced. When I referred to the CU law it was in reference to TO THE CU ISSUE you were talking about, YOU IGNORAMUS. How stupid can you possibly be, to think I was referring to CU as a law? What the hell are you on, meth? Are you ten years old? Does you mommy know you are on the internet? Do you eat your own shit or do you flush?

McCain is widely known in the republican party as the farthest left (on social issues) of all republicans. McCain is in fact further left than most democrats. McCain sides with democrats so often that when he "accidentally" walked into one of their closed door sessions, the Democrats erupted in applause.

Honestly, me boy. We all know what you said. It is ok. Congenital Idiocy entails massive ignorance. It is a mental illness. And really not your fault.

Serious question, are you mentally handicapped? You were talking about the CU decision and quoting to McCain's attack on the CU decision as proof that republicans were against the CU decision. I said and I quote, .."That CU law was McCain's baby." You said I was making shit up. Now you say I'm right. The issue you are having is you are just to stupid to understand an extremely simple sentence. That CU law is a reference TO YOUR COMMENTS. It's right up there for you to read again. Maybe this time you'll understand it now that you've read the wiki and can understand why McCain was against the CU decision.

 

[Rshermr]

The issue in the CU case was the law I cited, this IS the law that McCain authored. The result of the SCOTUS decision in the CU case was to change law I referenced. When I referred to the CU law it was in reference to TO THE CU ISSUE you were talking about, YOU IGNORAMUS. How stupid can you possibly be, to think I was referring to CU as a law? What the hell are you on, meth? Are you ten years old? Does you mommy know you are on the internet? Do you eat your own shit or do you flush?

McCain is widely known in the republican party as the farthest left (on social issues) of all republicans. McCain is in fact further left than most democrats. McCain sides with democrats so often that when he "accidentally" walked into one of their closed door sessions, the Democrats erupted in applause.

Honestly, me boy. We all know what you said. It is ok. Congenital Idiocy entails massive ignorance. It is a mental illness. And really not your fault.

Serious question, are you mentally handicapped? You were talking about the CU decision and quoting to McCain's attack on the CU decision as proof that republicans were against the CU decision. I said and I quote, .."That CU law was McCain's baby." You said I was making shit up. Now you say I'm right. The issue you are having is you are just to stupid to understand an extremely simple sentence. That CU law is a reference TO YOUR COMMENTS. It's right up there for you to read again. Maybe this time you'll understand it now that you've read the wiki and can understand why McCain was against the CU decision.

You really need to stop trying to dig your way out. I am not a mccain fan. Nor a fan of politicians in general. But even a clock is right twice per day. And he was correct then. In my opinion. and in the opinion of around 80% of the american public, and most of the rest of the world. So, I know exactly what I was saying. I know exactly what cu was about, and what the supremes did to it when they took it on. And actually, I could care less what mccain had to say. What is more important is what the people feel is correct. because, you see, I believe in the corny democracy concept. You know, everyone gets the same say in our political system. And money can not buy elections. Because corporate money has only one purpose: To gain access and favors from politicians. And because those favors are not going to be for the people, but rather for the corporations spending the money, we should all oppose it.

If you believe otherwise, good for you. Few of us do. The great majority want to take down cu. And there are organizations that exist now trying to do so. But, there is not a single repub politician in those organizations. Which leads me to a conclusion. Those who benefit from cu are not going to allow it to go away if they can help it.
By the way, republican citizens oppose cu by a fairly wide margin. If we make it uncomfortable, maybe more politicians will come around. If not, and they want to simply follow the party line, then we are stuck with something that the vast majority of the public does not want.