The Difference Between America And The Democrat Party

[Sixties Fan]

You've given up denying that Kagan, like you, hates free speech?

An admission that you are lying scum, huh????

I posted the truth on that first post. You are not going to turn Kagan into something she is not. Or has never been.

But talking about Brown shirts. Hiding in plain sight. And wanting to come to Congress.

One Nazi hates Jews so much he thinks they have Trump in their pocket. Most Jews did not vote for Trump. But it does not matter. All the Nazis hate the Jews, no matter what reason they give.

And they DO practice their freedom of speech, and no one is going to stop them, no one will take their right to express their hatred.

-------------
In at least five state and national races across the country, the Republican Party is dealing with an uncomfortable problem. Their party’s candidates are either a card-carrying Nazi, a Holocaust denier, a proud white supremacist, or all of the above.

In North Carolina, for example, GOP officials are stuck with Russell Walker, a white supremacist running for the state House of Representatives. According to his personal website (littered with the n-word), he believes that “the jews are NOT semitic they are satanic as they all descend from Satan.”

Republicans in the state have regrets. “This is a very Democratic district, one that we failed to keep our eye on,” Dallas Woodhouse, executive chair of the North Carolina GOP, told me in an email. “However, we can’t stop him from running.”

In Illinois, meanwhile, the Republican Party shrugged off Arthur Jones, a candidate for the state’s 3rd Congressional district who boasted of his membership in the American Nazi Party. But Jones won the GOP primary, and now party officials, including ones who called Jones “morally reprehensible” and “a complete nutcase,” are scrambling to launch a write-in campaign. Jones’s campaign website features a section called “Holocaust?” in which he argues that the “idea that six million Jews, were killed by the National Socialist government of Germany, in World War II, is the biggest, blackest lie in history.”

In Virginia, the chair of the state GOP resigned earlier this month, reportedly becauseof alt-right leaning, pro-Confederate candidate Corey Stewart’s win in the Republican primary. But even Stewart had to disavow Wisconsin’s Paul Nehlen, who is running to replace Speaker Paul Ryan. Nehlen’s too racist for Twitter and even for Gab, the preferred social media platform of the alt-right. Meanwhile, a California Republican running for Congress has been making appearances on neo-Nazi podcasts and argues on his campaign website that “diversity” is a Jewish plot. (The California GOP has disavowed him.)

Racial animus helped fuel the rise of Donald Trump. Since the end of the civil rights movement and under Republican strategist Lee Atwater’s “Southern strategy” that used racism as an unstated cudgel against Democrats, the Republican Party itself has played a welcoming host to racial tensions and fears. Simultaneously, it has depicted itself, as conservative columnist Jeff Jacoby put it in 2012, as “the party of color-blind equality and “a party that doesn’t think with its skin.”

But in a year when the left is energized in opposition to Trump, particularly by his policies toward minority groups and immigrants, and as the GOP tries to hang on to their majorities in Congress and state houses around the country, state party officials say they do not need racist fringe candidates running for office. None of these candidates is expected to win in the general election this fall, but they are going to give liberals on the hunt for examples of simmering neo-Nazi and neo-Confederate rhetoric at least five places to point.

An anti-Trump Nazi is running in Illinois​

Arthur Jones, an independent insurance salesperson known as “Art,” regrets voting for Donald Trump. But he’s got a different reason than most who’ve thought twice about their vote. In a speech in April 2017, Jones said:

The Jewish lobby has Donald Trump locked up. I don’t think the man realizes how naive he appears to the rest of the world. He’s nothing but a puppet in their hands. And we were foolish enough to send this naive, Jew-loving fool into the White House. I’m embarrassed that I voted for him. I’m sorry I voted for him. If I could take the vote back, I would in a minute.

Art is a card-carrying Nazi. Jones reportedly once led the American Nazi Party, and he was a member of a later version of the ANP, the National Socialist White People’s Party.

His website says he’s “concerned about the future of our country,” which, for a normal politician, might sound like a generic call for more spending on their generic priorities. But it takes on a very different connotation when you click over to the section called “Holocaust?,” a page that features a variety of conspiracy theories and racist ideas shared by the Holocaust-denier world.

Self-described Nazis and white supremacists are running as Republicans across the country. The GOP is terrified.

The racist candidates are expected to lose, but they could drag their party down with them.

www.vox.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

"....Justice Elena Kagan, in her earlier legal career, repeatedly asserted that First Amendment free-speech guarantees should be subject to a “categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.” The rights existed only because the government was “doling out th[e] favor” of those rights .

If the rights are a favor that can be doled out, then they can just as easily be withheld. That’s how the Left justifies speech codes , the heckler’s veto , and other means of shutting down speech unwelcome to a vocal faction."

KBJ opposes the Declaration of Independence, so oppose her - Washington Examiner

The Senate should not confirm Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson because she does not believe in the Declaration of Independence.Credit to Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center for catching a worrisome exchange on this topic on page 79 of Jackson’s response to written...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Try a non partisan source:

Quin Hillyer - Ballotpedia​

https://ballotpedia.org › Quin_Hillyer



Hillyer is a conservative columnist from Mobile, Alabama.

 

[rightwinger]

Democrats LOVE this country

Republicans are attacking our Democracy

 

[PoliticalChic]

I posted the truth on that first post. You are not going to turn Kagan into something she is not. Or has never been.

But talking about Brown shirts. Hiding in plain sight. And wanting to come to Congress.

One Nazi hates Jews so much he thinks they have Trump in their pocket. Most Jews did not vote for Trump. But it does not matter. All the Nazis hate the Jews, no matter what reason they give.

And they DO practice their freedom of speech, and no one is going to stop them, no one will take their right to express their hatred.

-------------
In at least five state and national races across the country, the Republican Party is dealing with an uncomfortable problem. Their party’s candidates are either a card-carrying Nazi, a Holocaust denier, a proud white supremacist, or all of the above.

In North Carolina, for example, GOP officials are stuck with Russell Walker, a white supremacist running for the state House of Representatives. According to his personal website (littered with the n-word), he believes that “the jews are NOT semitic they are satanic as they all descend from Satan.”

Republicans in the state have regrets. “This is a very Democratic district, one that we failed to keep our eye on,” Dallas Woodhouse, executive chair of the North Carolina GOP, told me in an email. “However, we can’t stop him from running.”

In Illinois, meanwhile, the Republican Party shrugged off Arthur Jones, a candidate for the state’s 3rd Congressional district who boasted of his membership in the American Nazi Party. But Jones won the GOP primary, and now party officials, including ones who called Jones “morally reprehensible” and “a complete nutcase,” are scrambling to launch a write-in campaign. Jones’s campaign website features a section called “Holocaust?” in which he argues that the “idea that six million Jews, were killed by the National Socialist government of Germany, in World War II, is the biggest, blackest lie in history.”

In Virginia, the chair of the state GOP resigned earlier this month, reportedly becauseof alt-right leaning, pro-Confederate candidate Corey Stewart’s win in the Republican primary. But even Stewart had to disavow Wisconsin’s Paul Nehlen, who is running to replace Speaker Paul Ryan. Nehlen’s too racist for Twitter and even for Gab, the preferred social media platform of the alt-right. Meanwhile, a California Republican running for Congress has been making appearances on neo-Nazi podcasts and argues on his campaign website that “diversity” is a Jewish plot. (The California GOP has disavowed him.)

Racial animus helped fuel the rise of Donald Trump. Since the end of the civil rights movement and under Republican strategist Lee Atwater’s “Southern strategy” that used racism as an unstated cudgel against Democrats, the Republican Party itself has played a welcoming host to racial tensions and fears. Simultaneously, it has depicted itself, as conservative columnist Jeff Jacoby put it in 2012, as “the party of color-blind equality and “a party that doesn’t think with its skin.”

But in a year when the left is energized in opposition to Trump, particularly by his policies toward minority groups and immigrants, and as the GOP tries to hang on to their majorities in Congress and state houses around the country, state party officials say they do not need racist fringe candidates running for office. None of these candidates is expected to win in the general election this fall, but they are going to give liberals on the hunt for examples of simmering neo-Nazi and neo-Confederate rhetoric at least five places to point.

An anti-Trump Nazi is running in Illinois​

arArthur Jones, an independent insurance salesperson known as “Art,” regrets voting for Donald Trump. But he’s got a different reason than most who’ve thought twice about their vote. In a speech in April 2017, Jones said:



Art is a card-carrying Nazi. Jones reportedly once led the American Nazi Party, and he was a member of a later version of the ANP, the National Socialist White People’s Party.

His website says he’s “concerned about the future of our country,” which, for a normal politician, might sound like a generic call for more spending on their generic priorities. But it takes on a very different connotation when you click over to the section called “Holocaust?,” a page that features a variety of conspiracy theories and racist ideas shared by the Holocaust-denier world.

Self-described Nazis and white supremacists are running as Republicans across the country. The GOP is terrified.

The racist candidates are expected to lose, but they could drag their party down with them.

www.vox.com

I posted a dozen linked articles proving both, that Kagan opposes free speech and you are a low-life scummy liar.




Let's leave the conclusion up to readers.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Ok.

So who is next on your list?

Breyer or Sotomayor?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ok.

So who is next on your list?

Breyer or Sotomayor?

What a truly stupid attempt to change the focus from you being proven lying scum.

 

[Sixties Fan]

What a truly stupid attempt to change the focus from you being proven lying scum.

You proved nothing.

Quantity is not quality.

3 articles from partisan Republican sources does not a case make.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. “Justice Kagan Questions Her Own Legitimacy​

By undermining the Supreme Court’s legitimacy, the senior-most left-wing justice also calls into question her own legitimacy.

…Supreme Court’s chief justice offered his first public remarks following the Court’s recently concluded (and highly productive) term. In doing so, as our Nate Jackson noted, Roberts stood firm against leftist critics ….
“The Court has always decided controversial cases, and decisions always have been subject to intense criticism and that is entirely appropriate,” Roberts began. “But I don’t understand the connection between the opinions people disagree with and the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.”

Kagan must not have gotten the memo about the Court’s legitimacy. “When courts become extensions of the political process,” she told a friendly audience at Northwestern University School of Law, “when people see them as extensions of the political process, when people see them as trying just to impose personal preferences on a society irrespective of the law, that’s when there’s a problem — and that’s when there ought to be a problem.”

Kagan should put a sock in it, and she should instead encourage her side to stop doing unconstitutional things —
things like, oh, encroaching upon the citizenry’s First and Second Amendment rights,
and granting almost unlimited governmental powers to unelected bureaucrats,
and finding nonexistent “penumbras” and “emanations” from which to assert that we can murder our babies right up until the moment of birth.”
Justice Kagan Questions Her Own Legitimacy



Can I get an "AMEN!!"?????

 

[Winston]

"Most troubling of all is that the line of reasoning running through Kagan's opposition to our case leads directly to the conclusion that the government has the authority to ban books and other forms of communication. When our case was reargued before the high court last September, Kagan tried to walk back from that reasoning, saying that the "FEC has never applied this statute to a book." But she specifically noted that pamphlets could be censored, which leads to questions: What about content published on a Kindle or an iPad? What about YouTube or other Internet sites that do not have 200 years of tradition and jurisprudence protecting them? Is a statement from a government lawyer that "we've never prosecuted anyone for that" really an acceptable protection of a constitutionally guaranteed right? As Chief Justice John Roberts rightly noted that day, "we don't put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats."

Kagan would wield enormous power over the constitutionally guaranteed right of every American to participate in the political process — a right that she believes government can restrict."

Bossie: Freedom of speech comes first

I have no doubt that Elena Kagan is an intelligent and capable attorney, and I do not believe, as some have asserted, that her lack of judicial experience disqualifies her for a seat on the Supreme C…

www.statesman.com

Sieg Heil, Frau Kagan!

OK, you copy and paste some dumbass shit but this time you have clearly revealed are uneducated you are, despite your claims. First, let me help your vocabulary,

uncoerced : not obtained, compelled, or achieved by threat or force : not coerced

Definition of UNCOERCED

not obtained, compelled, or achieved by threat or force : not coerced… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

So you have learned a new word today, at least something positive as came from your cut and paste shit job. But now, to the link I quoted,

Bossie: Freedom of speech comes first

I have no doubt that Elena Kagan is an intelligent and capable attorney, and I do not believe, as some have asserted, that her lack of judicial experience disqualifies her for a seat on the Supreme C…

www.statesman.com

I know it is not designated as such so I can understand you not realizing that it was an op-ed, and to the Washington Post no less. I mean your lack of understanding of the entire picture here is laughable. The op-ed was written by David Bossie. That ring a bell. Of course not, he leads Citizens United. And it is an OP, reposted on September 27, 2018. Very amateurish utilizing that link. Should have used this one,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052003943.html

Hell, that is an eight-year difference. Are you kidding me? That is sad journalism. First you represent an opinion piece as a news article, and then you find out the original op-ed was written more than eight years ago. And represented as news? WTF?

 

[PoliticalChic]

OK, you copy and paste some dumbass shit but this time you have clearly revealed are uneducated you are, despite your claims. First, let me help your vocabulary,

uncoerced : not obtained, compelled, or achieved by threat or force : not coerced

Definition of UNCOERCED

not obtained, compelled, or achieved by threat or force : not coerced… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

So you have learned a new word today, at least something positive as came from your cut and paste shit job. But now, to the link I quoted,

Bossie: Freedom of speech comes first

I have no doubt that Elena Kagan is an intelligent and capable attorney, and I do not believe, as some have asserted, that her lack of judicial experience disqualifies her for a seat on the Supreme C…

www.statesman.com

I know it is not designated as such so I can understand you not realizing that it was an op-ed, and to the Washington Post no less. I mean your lack of understanding of the entire picture here is laughable. The op-ed was written by David Bossie. That ring a bell. Of course not, he leads Citizens United. And it is an OP, reposted on September 27, 2018. Very amateurish utilizing that link. Should have used this one,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052003943.html

Hell, that is an eight-year difference. Are you kidding me? That is sad journalism. First you represent an opinion piece as a news article, and then you find out the original op-ed was written more than eight years ago. And represented as news? WTF?

What is that unbearable smell.......????





Oh....it's you.





The scummy low-life liar that I exposed as follows: you wrote this-



"And there it is, you just revealed yourself a liar. A couple of years ago you claimed a degree from Brown." When You Are Missing The Ability To Learn.... post 48







You lied and I caught you in the lie.



I never said any such thing. There has never been any such claim by me.





I challenged you to prove it....and you simply slitered away.





There is a search function and you and anyone else can use it.



And there will be no such statement by me.



Because you are a low-life lying scum.







Are you ready to admit that you are lying scum and I never made the statement you just claimed I made?



Proven by the fact that no such statement exists.





And you will never be allowed to forget what a sack of offal you are.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. The Democrats cannot accept that anyone had a different idea then their agenda.
And that appllies to the Supreme Court that they have ruined with three unqualified picks.



“Crazy idea,” says the Wall Street Journal editorial page, “but maybe what’s really hurting the Supreme Court’s perceived legitimacy is that the Democratic Party, led by President Biden, is running a political campaign against it.

Consider Gallup’s poll taken in July, after Dobbs, which shows approval of the Court at 43%, ‘statistically unchanged’ from last year’s record low of 40%. That headline figure ‘masks big swings among partisans,’ Gallup says. Republican approval is up 29 points to 72%. Democratic approval is down 23 points to 13%.”

But beyond Dobbs, Kagan is likely working the refs ahead of another hugely consequential Supreme Court decision. As the editors continue: “She’s warning the Justices that the ‘legitimacy’ attacks will continue if they dare to rule in ways that progressives don’t like. She’s probably thinking in particular about the looming case on racial preferences at Harvard and the University of North Carolina.”
To which we say, Enough.
Feel bad about yourself, Justice Kagan. And resolve to be better. Or, as you yourself put it, find another job.” Justice Kagan Questions Her Own Legitimacy

 

[Winston]

6. “Justice Kagan Questions Her Own Legitimacy​

By undermining the Supreme Court’s legitimacy, the senior-most left-wing justice also calls into question her own legitimacy.

…Supreme Court’s chief justice offered his first public remarks following the Court’s recently concluded (and highly productive) term. In doing so, as our Nate Jackson noted, Roberts stood firm against leftist critics ….
“The Court has always decided controversial cases, and decisions always have been subject to intense criticism and that is entirely appropriate,” Roberts began. “But I don’t understand the connection between the opinions people disagree with and the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.”

Kagan must not have gotten the memo about the Court’s legitimacy. “When courts become extensions of the political process,” she told a friendly audience at Northwestern University School of Law, “when people see them as extensions of the political process, when people see them as trying just to impose personal preferences on a society irrespective of the law, that’s when there’s a problem — and that’s when there ought to be a problem.”

Kagan should put a sock in it, and she should instead encourage her side to stop doing unconstitutional things —
things like, oh, encroaching upon the citizenry’s First and Second Amendment rights,
and granting almost unlimited governmental powers to unelected bureaucrats,
and finding nonexistent “penumbras” and “emanations” from which to assert that we can murder our babies right up until the moment of birth.”
Justice Kagan Questions Her Own Legitimacy



Can I get an "AMEN!!"?????

I am tagging you again because I am not done. That op-ed, it was even before Kagan's confirmation hearings, I mean we are talking days after her nomination. And Bossie, well no damn skippy he opposes her nomination, getting paid to do it even. Not like he doesn't have sour grapes and is just a lousy winner. Kagan was the Solicitor General that argued, for the government, against Citizen's United. And his ass won?

She lost, which was a big sticking point with many, followers of public events. She flippin lost it, now she is awarded? Not really cool, but this distortion of her record on free speech was quickly reprimanded from multiple directions. The legal community, the "liberal" media. Called it out for what it was, sour grapes and poor winner.

And that whole statement, average donation is $50. A bald-faced lie. Hundreds of thousands of donors, nope, another bald-faced lie, or at least that is what they claim.

Citizens United Profile: Summary

Citizens United organization profile. Contributions in the 2022 cycle: $417,723. Lobbying in 2022: $0. Outside Spending in the 2022 cycle: $70,860.

www.opensecrets.org

LMAO, they don't need "hundreds of thousands" of members paying an average $50 bucks, they need 1500 SUCKERS. But that is not it, not really. The reality is organizations like Citizens United, spend millions on elections. From state house races to any senator in 2022, and the average donation ain't fifty damn bucks. Here, try this,

Report: Billionaires Spend 40 Times More on Political Campaigns Than in 2010 Thanks to “Citizens United”

Billionaires spent $1.2 billion on the 2020 election – about 70 times what they spent on campaign donations in 2008.

truthout.org

Now I don't know about you, but just because of some damn SCOTUS ruling, why the politicians rake in an extra BILLION dollars from billionaires? OK, ok, hold on here. Don't we have contribution limits? Well, not with "dark money", which is all Citizens United was ever about. And hello howdy, politicians rake in a billion from billionaires. Hell, I bet they got an extra day off from the call center.

You reckon those billionaires just gleefully gave their money up, not expecting anything in return. Ah hell, let's check.

Billionaires made $3.9 trillion during the pandemic — enough to pay for everyone's vaccine

The increase in wealth of the 10 richest billionaires could pay for everyone worldwide to get the COVID-19 vaccine, per an Oxfam report on inequality.

www.businessinsider.com

Holy shit, 3.9 Trillion through the pandemic alone? WTF kind of return is that. OK, starting to bother me now, almost 4,000%? And you people believe in Q-Anon child sacrificing, flesh eating, manipulators. I mean is that not starting to fall into place for you?

I mean I am about over it. I should wax here about rent seeking, political contributions, purchasing of power, till the cows come home. I mean you Trumpbots just don't seem to get it. I mean the "commoners" have been tossed to the curb, it is Katy bar the door,

What is that unbearable smell.......????





Oh....it's you.





The scummy low-life liar that I exposed as follows: you wrote this-



"And there it is, you just revealed yourself a liar. A couple of years ago you claimed a degree from Brown." When You Are Missing The Ability To Learn.... post 48







You lied and I caught you in the lie.



I never said any such thing. There has never been any such claim by me.





I challenged you to prove it....and you simply slitered away.





There is a search function and you and anyone else can use it.



And there will be no such statement by me.



Because you are a low-life lying scum.







Are you ready to admit that you are lying scum and I never made the statement you just claimed I made?



Proven by the fact that no such statement exists.





And you will never be allowed to forget what a sack of offal you are.

See, that is what I mean by copy and paste. Look honey, it is getting old. But the reality is that the very direction of my posts are little more than revealing that whole "Columbia" bullshit is sheer pose. You are a poser.

You post a re-post of an eight year old op-ed that was written at the very nomination of Kagan, by the leader of Citizen's United. And Hagan was the Solicitor General that argued against Citizen's United, and you didn't even know it. Plus, the damn source quoted an eight year old op-ed in the FLIPPIN NEWS SECTION. Oh, and I forgot, a highly discredited op-ed no less.

At the time, that op-ed was highly ridiculed for what it was, sour grapes and poor winner. It totally misrepresented Hagan's position on free speech. And Bossie's claim of hundreds of thousands of fifty dollar doners is sheer horseshit. Citizens United's total political spending the the 2022 election could have been funded with less than fifteen hundred fifty dollar donations.

Citizens United Profile: Summary

Citizens United organization profile. Contributions in the 2022 cycle: $417,723. Lobbying in 2022: $0. Outside Spending in the 2022 cycle: $70,860.

www.opensecrets.org

 

[PoliticalChic]

I am tagging you again because I am not done. That op-ed, it was even before Kagan's confirmation hearings, I mean we are talking days after her nomination. And Bossie, well no damn skippy he opposes her nomination, getting paid to do it even. Not like he doesn't have sour grapes and is just a lousy winner. Kagan was the Solicitor General that argued, for the government, against Citizen's United. And his ass won?

She lost, which was a big sticking point with many, followers of public events. She flippin lost it, now she is awarded? Not really cool, but this distortion of her record on free speech was quickly reprimanded from multiple directions. The legal community, the "liberal" media. Called it out for what it was, sour grapes and poor winner.

And that whole statement, average donation is $50. A bald-faced lie. Hundreds of thousands of donors, nope, another bald-faced lie, or at least that is what they claim.

Citizens United Profile: Summary

Citizens United organization profile. Contributions in the 2022 cycle: $417,723. Lobbying in 2022: $0. Outside Spending in the 2022 cycle: $70,860.

www.opensecrets.org

LMAO, they don't need "hundreds of thousands" of members paying an average $50 bucks, they need 1500 SUCKERS. But that is not it, not really. The reality is organizations like Citizens United, spend millions on elections. From state house races to any senator in 2022, and the average donation ain't fifty damn bucks. Here, try this,

Report: Billionaires Spend 40 Times More on Political Campaigns Than in 2010 Thanks to “Citizens United”

Billionaires spent $1.2 billion on the 2020 election – about 70 times what they spent on campaign donations in 2008.

truthout.org

Now I don't know about you, but just because of some damn SCOTUS ruling, why the politicians rake in an extra BILLION dollars from billionaires? OK, ok, hold on here. Don't we have contribution limits? Well, not with "dark money", which is all Citizens United was ever about. And hello howdy, politicians rake in a billion from billionaires. Hell, I bet they got an extra day off from the call center.

You reckon those billionaires just gleefully gave their money up, not expecting anything in return. Ah hell, let's check.

Billionaires made $3.9 trillion during the pandemic — enough to pay for everyone's vaccine

The increase in wealth of the 10 richest billionaires could pay for everyone worldwide to get the COVID-19 vaccine, per an Oxfam report on inequality.

www.businessinsider.com

Holy shit, 3.9 Trillion through the pandemic alone? WTF kind of return is that. OK, starting to bother me now, almost 4,000%? And you people believe in Q-Anon child sacrificing, flesh eating, manipulators. I mean is that not starting to fall into place for you?

I mean I am about over it. I should wax here about rent seeking, political contributions, purchasing of power, till the cows come home. I mean you Trumpbots just don't seem to get it. I mean the "commoners" have been tossed to the curb, it is Katy bar the door,

See, that is what I mean by copy and paste. Look honey, it is getting old. But the reality is that the very direction of my posts are little more than revealing that whole "Columbia" bullshit is sheer pose. You are a poser.

You post a re-post of an eight year old op-ed that was written at the very nomination of Kagan, by the leader of Citizen's United. And Hagan was the Solicitor General that argued against Citizen's United, and you didn't even know it. Plus, the damn source quoted an eight year old op-ed in the FLIPPIN NEWS SECTION. Oh, and I forgot, a highly discredited op-ed no less.

At the time, that op-ed was highly ridiculed for what it was, sour grapes and poor winner. It totally misrepresented Hagan's position on free speech. And Bossie's claim of hundreds of thousands of fifty dollar doners is sheer horseshit. Citizens United's total political spending the the 2022 election could have been funded with less than fifteen hundred fifty dollar donations.

Citizens United Profile: Summary

Citizens United organization profile. Contributions in the 2022 cycle: $417,723. Lobbying in 2022: $0. Outside Spending in the 2022 cycle: $70,860.

www.opensecrets.org

You're done......where's the admission you lied about me, and the apology?

That is the only thing I have any interest in hearing from you, liar.

NOW!

 

[Winston]

You're done......where's the admission you lied about me, and the apology?

That is the only thing I have any interest in hearing from you, liar.

NOW!

You're done......where's the admission you lied about me, and the apology?

That is the only thing I have any interest in hearing from you, liar.

NOW!

LMAO. It don't work that way honey. I know you are a poser, and rather the lie was about Brown, or Columbia, is of no consequence. It is still a lie. If I am wrong, then I got to admit I am highly disappointed in either Brown or Columbia. I mean how can they even accept someone with so little critical thinking skills?

I mean come on honey. My whole point in this thread is that post, the first post I quoted, was an amateur move at best. I mean insulting to the intelligence if you want to know the truth. I didn't need Google to know that. I have lived it. I mean what are you, like 25, maybe? With a sad life no doubt. I feel for you.

But here is the thing that I so want to believe. Someone with an Ivy League education would have done a minimal amount of due diligence. An eight year old op-ed, in the news section? That shit makes my head hurt.

 

[PoliticalChic]

LMAO. It don't work that way honey. I know you are a poser, and rather the lie was about Brown, or Columbia, is of no consequence. It is still a lie. If I am wrong, then I got to admit I am highly disappointed in either Brown or Columbia. I mean how can they even accept someone with so little critical thinking skills?

I mean come on honey. My whole point in this thread is that post, the first post I quoted, was an amateur move at best. I mean insulting to the intelligence if you want to know the truth. I didn't need Google to know that. I have lived it. I mean what are you, like 25, maybe? With a sad life no doubt. I feel for you.

But here is the thing that I so want to believe. Someone with an Ivy League education would have done a minimal amount of due diligence. An eight year old op-ed, in the news section? That shit makes my head hurt.

It works the way I say it works, buffoon.

Lying low-life....take a hike.

 

[Winston]

It works the way I say it works, buffoon.

Lying low-life....take a hike.

LMAO, works the way it works I see you playing to the peepers From our conversation, you look like the poser you are to the peepers. God Bless your Heart.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. “… Elena Kagan authored a brief to the Supreme Court arguing that “whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.” This is the kind of instrumentalism that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. was famous for and of which Sunstein would be proud. You might even call it Ivy League “empathy.”

The Supreme Court rejected Kagan’s argument, but, as Mark Tapscott has said, “had the justices accepted her assertion, it would have effectively repealed the First Amendment’s protection of speech and replaced it by granting government the authority to decide what speech should be permitted.” Kagan on Free Speech | National Review



This Democrat beliefs writ large: it is the same view that Nazis, Bolsheviks, Maoists, etc. have of free speech.

It is surely not American.
But this is the sort of Justice the Democrats demand on the Court.

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. “The First Amendment is supposed to protect the freedom to speak your mind, assemble and protest nonviolently without being bridled by the government. It also protects the freedom of the media, as well as the right to worship and pray without interference. In other words, Americans should not be silenced by the government. To the founders, all of America was a free speech zone.



Despite the clear protections found in the First Amendment, the freedoms described therein are under constant assault. Increasingly, Americans are being persecuted for exercising their First Amendment rights and speaking out against government corruption. Activists are being arrested and charged for daring to film police officers engaged in harassment or abusive practices. Journalists are being prosecuted for reporting on whistleblowers.



States are passing legislation to muzzle reporting on cruel and abusive corporate practices. Religious ministries are being fined for attempting to feed and house the homeless. Protesters are being tear-gassed, beaten, arrested and forced into “free speech zones.” And under the guise of “government speech,” the courts have reasoned that the government can discriminate freely against any First Amendment activity that takes place within a so-called government forum.”

Overthrow the Government: All the Ways in Which Our Rights Have Been Usurped

It’s easy to become discouraged about the state of our nation. We’re drowning under the weight of too much debt,

americafirstreport.com

Does the name Kagan come to mind???