The Supremes Suck

[Uncensored2008]

If you are referring to my discussion of WHY The Supremes suck, yes - I don't have much time right now, but just wanted to get this in and open it up for discussion, although there has probably already been a thread or two on it already.

I can do much better when commenting on these political hacks - and will, when I have more time.

If you could just have anyone who failed to completely and faithfully obey the party put in prison, all would be good, nyet Comrade?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Gee, the Supremes didn't suck when a former KKK member wrote the modern version of separation of Church/State and they didn't suck when they found an issue of privacy that didn't exist in the Constitution to justify the slaughter of the unborn but they suck when they affirm the well accepted concept that money is speech. No wonder the world is upside down in the liberal mind.

The MSM is the propaganda wing of the DNC - an irrefutable fact. The Unions are the criminal arm of the DNC - fact.

George is OUTRAGED that anyone other than the MSM and Unions are permitted political speech. OUTRAGED I TELLS YA!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yeah . . . that's pretty much about it, isn't it? Politics is so subjective.

But freedom isn't. There is freedom of speech, or there isn't. You want to restrict speech against your party, I understand. You want to silence those who would utter words against the party. But in doing so, you end freedom and substitute obedience.

The SCOTUS ruled that we have freedom of speech. Even enemies of the party may spend money to deliver a message - EVEN IF IT CONTRADICTS the MSM and Unions.

I realize that our betters in the party know what is best, and their agents at CNN-MSNABCBS-NY Times-WaPo-Los Angles Pravda alone should be able to speak, but the SCOTUS upheld the Constitution - you lost a battle to end that document. But hey, the war your party wages against civil rights is still raging.

Bummer.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Lefties have been whining about the Koch brothers for so long that a maniac (who once ran on the democrat party ticket) shot three Jews in Kansas.

So, Americans who don't want our voices bought and paid for are the cause for a KKK nut shooting three NON-Jews in Kansas?

 

[whitehall]

I rest my case. Look at the disrespectful photo where the word "Koch" is photoshopped to Scalia's robe. You might as well pin a Jewish star. The maniac who shot three innocent Jews was a democrat and a party member of the KKK and the Nazi party and influenced by hatred for "rich Jews"who were allowed by the Supreme Court to contribute to political causes. The hatred for Jews is endemic in the radical left and will result in more bloodshed unless Media Matters and other left wing political propaganda sources stop blaming the Jews for the Supreme Court decision that re-affirmed the issue that money equals free speech.

 

[DGS49]

Let's see now...

Imagine I'm a really rich bastard and I want to impact how the government operates. Let's look a few things I can do that are not questionable in any way.

I can buy a full-page ad in a thousand different newspapers and publish a letter to the general public with all of my views. People might read it, they might not. They might use it to line their birdcage, but the Gub'mint can't stop me from saying what I want to say, even if it is a bit inflammatory.

I could also take out a full page ad, with my own money, and write an entertaining treatise on why I think a certain candidate for public office would be the ideal person to win the next election. Or why I think the other guy would be a disaster.

No reason why I couldn't do that.

I could do the same on radio or TV. Pay for the time and speak my mind. People don't have to watch & listen but there is no reason - certainly no CONSTITUTIONAL reason - why I can't do it. I would have to identify myself as the person paying for the ad, but that's fine.

Or I can just buy a newspaper and select the editorial staff according to my own political views. Then, from time to time I can publish a letter to the readers giving them my views on elections, issues of public interest, or pretty much whatever the fuck I want. I can endorse candidates, criticize them, ridicule them, or try to make them beloved public figures.

Or I can run for public office and SPEND AS MUCH OF MY OWN MONEY AS I CARE TO SPEND, and there is no reason - certainly no CONSTITUTIONAL reason - why I can't do it. It might even be possible to buy, for example, the governorship of Pennsylvania; a guy named Tom Wolf is trying to do just that with his own money as I type this posting. Nothing wrong with it.

But somehow, if I decide NOT to do any of these other things, and just contribute to the campaign of the candidate of my choice, there are people here ("Liberals") who think that under our Constitution, it should be possible for Government (i.e., the bastards who are already elected to office) to LIMIT the amount I can spend.

It's fucking perverse, I tell you. And totally divorced from either facts or logic.

 

[George Costanza]

But somehow, if I decide NOT to do any of these other things, and just contribute to the campaign of the candidate of my choice, there are people here ("Liberals") who think that under our Constitution, it should be possible for Government (i.e., the bastards who are already elected to office) to LIMIT the amount I can spend.

It's fucking perverse, I tell you. And totally divorced from either facts or logic.

Apparently you fail to grasp the reason behind limiting campaign contributions. How would you have it? Would you be in favor of simply lifting all restrictions on campaign contributions? Can you imagine what could easily happen then? Doesn't something like that bother you?

 

[George Costanza]

But hey, the war your party wages against civil rights is still raging.

The war the Democratic party wages against civil rights?

Yes, that nasty old Democratic party that wages war against civil rights. Golly, I remember back in the 60's when the Kennedy and Johnson administrations were trying their best to allow the South to continue its policy of de facto segregation but, try as they might, the Republicans were successful in winning the war and cleaning up the South.

And that pesky old ACLU - constanly opposed to civil rights matters.

And that idiotic Warren Court of the 1950's and 1960's - doing everything it could to inhibit the rights of those accused of crime.

Well, gotta go now - have to get back to conservative talk radio to bone up a bit more on the Demoractic party war on civil rights . . .

 

[Uncensored2008]

The war the Democratic party wages against civil rights?

Yes, the active campaign democrats are engaged in to end the first ten amendments, particularly the freedom of speech and religion. Not to mention the extreme measures taken to crush the civil right to self defense.

Yes, that nasty old Democratic party that wages war against civil rights.

You've been doing it a long time.

Sure, you currently seek to crush the first amendment;

Little Sisters of the Poor vs. Obama -- free exercise of religion is under attack | Fox News

But you also were the folks behind the KKK and Jim Crow, so attacks on rights are just what you do.

Golly, I remember back in the 60's when the Kennedy and Johnson administrations were trying their best to allow the South to continue its policy of de facto segregation but, try as they might, the Republicans were successful in winning the war and cleaning up the South.

Do you think lying will alter reality?

Seriously?

And that pesky old ACLU - constanly opposed to civil rights matters.

The ACLU is worthless for civil rights. I wish they were a legitimate organization, but they are a radical leftist group with a faded veneer of civil rights.

And that idiotic Warren Court of the 1950's and 1960's - doing everything it could to inhibit the rights of those accused of crime.

Well, gotta go now - have to get back to conservative talk radio to bone up a bit more on the Demoractic party war on civil rights . . .

The shameful democrats have assaulted the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th amendments.

Now granted, Lord Obama has not attempted to house soldiers in the houses of civilians, but he's pissed on every other item in the bill of rights.

If you want to talk about the Warren court and the assault on the rule of law, the transformation of the nation from a society governed by law, into a society ruled by men, we can - in a separate thread.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[George Costanza]

The war the Democratic party wages against civil rights?

Yes, the active campaign democrats are engaged in to end the first ten amendments, particularly the freedom of speech and religion. Not to mention the extreme measures taken to crush the civil right to self defense.

Yes, that nasty old Democratic party that wages war against civil rights.

You've been doing it a long time.

Sure, you currently seek to crush the first amendment;

Little Sisters of the Poor vs. Obama -- free exercise of religion is under attack | Fox News

But you also were the folks behind the KKK and Jim Crow, so attacks on rights are just what you do.



Do you think lying will alter reality?

Seriously?

And that pesky old ACLU - constanly opposed to civil rights matters.

The ACLU is worthless for civil rights. I wish they were a legitimate organization, but they are a radical leftist group with a faded veneer of civil rights.

And that idiotic Warren Court of the 1950's and 1960's - doing everything it could to inhibit the rights of those accused of crime.

Well, gotta go now - have to get back to conservative talk radio to bone up a bit more on the Demoractic party war on civil rights . . .

The shameful democrats have assaulted the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th amendments.

Now granted, Lord Obama has not attempted to house soldiers in the houses of civilians, but he's pissed on every other item in the bill of rights.

If you want to talk about the Warren court and the assault on the rule of law, the transformation of the nation from a society governed by law, into a society ruled by men, we can - in a separate thread.

The ACLU's primary pupose is to protect society from many of the attempted civil rights violations perpetrated by the Christian Right and the Republican party. Ironic that you would accuse the ACLU of promoting civil rights violations. Kind of like the school bully complaining that he is being victimized by the horrible vice principal who won't let him do any more bullying.

The Warren court is now an "assault on the rule of law." Love it. Not even going to waste time on that one.

Are you saying that the Kennedy and Johnson administrations did NOT seek to implement civil rights in the South in the 60's? I think you said I was lying about that. Wherein was that a lie?

 

[whitehall]

If leftie leaning media sources were honest the issue would be ridiculed. If the left wing leaning media was honest, the murder of three Jewish people by a deranged former democrat party politician would be blamed on the insane propaganda by Media Matters and Huffington directed at the (Jewish) Koch philanthropists. The radical left didn't blink an eye when the Supreme Court refused to address FDR's incarceration of American citizens for the crime of being Japanese or when a (FDR appointed) former KKK member of the Supreme Court wrote the majority opinion that created the modern version of separation of Church/State or the invention of "privacy" not contained in the Constitution to legalize the holocaust of the unborn. For some reason the simple affirmation by the supreme court that Americans can pool their money or corporations (and Jews) have the same right as citizens to contribute to political causes seems to create outrage in the radical liberal community.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Well, they've done it again. Campaign contribution limits raised. Money talks, hey boys?

The Supremes are kicking ass when it comes to voting rights, aren't they? First, they OK voter ID requirements on the basis of bogus "election fraud" claims, thereby disenfranchising the poor, who don't have picure ID's many times (oh, yes - and who also vote predominately democratic as well). Now they lift the limits on campaign contributions so the rich can get rich and the poor can get poorer.

Our Supreme Court should not be a political tool. That's what it is today. Scalia should be excised from the Court along with his right-wing buddy, Clarence Thomas. They could also take the CJ with them on their way out the door.

SCOTUS screwed the pooch in upholding ObumblerCare as allegedly being "Constitutional." Libs applauded.

Now, when SCOTUS gets a few RIGHT, the libs carp and whine.

What a world.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Well, they've done it again. Campaign contribution limits raised. Money talks, hey boys?

The Supremes are kicking ass when it comes to voting rights, aren't they? First, they OK voter ID requirements on the basis of bogus "election fraud" claims, thereby disenfranchising the poor, who don't have picure ID's many times (oh, yes - and who also vote predominately democratic as well). Now they lift the limits on campaign contributions so the rich can get rich and the poor can get poorer.

Our Supreme Court should not be a political tool. That's what it is today. Scalia should be excised from the Court along with his right-wing buddy, Clarence Thomas. They could also take the CJ with them on their way out the door.

Disappointed, George. So you want to deny the people the power to protect the franchise against fraud and deny them the right to challenge the political establishment, for make no mistake about it, all the demagoguery aside, that's who benefits otherwise. I took you for someone who could see past the shoeshine.

 

[George Costanza]

Well, they've done it again. Campaign contribution limits raised. Money talks, hey boys?

The Supremes are kicking ass when it comes to voting rights, aren't they? First, they OK voter ID requirements on the basis of bogus "election fraud" claims, thereby disenfranchising the poor, who don't have picure ID's many times (oh, yes - and who also vote predominately democratic as well). Now they lift the limits on campaign contributions so the rich can get rich and the poor can get poorer.

Our Supreme Court should not be a political tool. That's what it is today. Scalia should be excised from the Court along with his right-wing buddy, Clarence Thomas. They could also take the CJ with them on their way out the door.

Disappointed, George. So you want to deny the people the power to protect the franchise against fraud and deny them the right to challenge the political establishment, for make no mistake about it, all the demagoguery aside, that's who benefits otherwise. I took you for someone who could see past the shoeshine.

As a liberal, I am all in favor of giving the people the power to challenge the political establishment if, by "the people," we are talking about people from all levels of society, not just the wealthy.

And this is precisely why I authored this thread to begin with. This current Supreme Court decision gives the rich the power to influence the political landscape, but bestows no such benefit to the poor. In fact, it makes it more possible for the haves to shove it to the have-nots which is, of course, precisely the intent of this politically-oriented pack of hypocrites.

 

[George Costanza]

Well, they've done it again. Campaign contribution limits raised. Money talks, hey boys?

The Supremes are kicking ass when it comes to voting rights, aren't they? First, they OK voter ID requirements on the basis of bogus "election fraud" claims, thereby disenfranchising the poor, who don't have picure ID's many times (oh, yes - and who also vote predominately democratic as well). Now they lift the limits on campaign contributions so the rich can get rich and the poor can get poorer.

Our Supreme Court should not be a political tool. That's what it is today. Scalia should be excised from the Court along with his right-wing buddy, Clarence Thomas. They could also take the CJ with them on their way out the door.

SCOTUS screwed the pooch in upholding ObumblerCare as allegedly being "Constitutional." Libs applauded.

Now, when SCOTUS gets a few RIGHT, the libs carp and whine.

What a world.

The cons carped and whined when The Supremes upheld the Health Care Act. Now, they are applauding.

Ho-hum.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The ACLU's primary pupose is to protect society from many of the attempted civil rights violations perpetrated by the Christian Right and the Republican party.

Really?

I would love it if the ACLU would openly state that their purpose is to wage war on Christians and Republicans.

But of course, they pretend to be a civil rights group. In fact they are agents of destruction, waging war on cultural values whilst ignoring legitimate civil rights issues.

Ironic that you would accuse the ACLU of promoting civil rights violations. Kind of like the school bully complaining that he is being victimized by the horrible vice principal who won't let him do any more bullying.

You are fabricating statements by me. The ACLU is worthless in regards to civil rights. They are too busy working to unravel the foundational culture of the nation to be bothered with support of civil rights. It is your shameful party that directly assaults civil liberty, Obama's war on the Catholic Church, et al. The ACLU stands idle as the party crushes rights.

There ARE legitimate civil rights groups, the ACLJ defended the Colorado nuns against Obama's attack. But the ACLU is silent, they would rather promote the Klan or other viruses destroying American culture.

The Warren court is now an "assault on the rule of law." Love it. Not even going to waste time on that one.

Look dude, you're a hack. You regurgitate idiocy from the radical left hate sites. It's not like you actually know the subject under discussion.

Are you saying that the Kennedy and Johnson administrations did NOT seek to implement civil rights in the South in the 60's? I think you said I was lying about that. Wherein was that a lie?

Johnson sought a strategy to solidify the black vote. He adopted support for the 1952 Republican civil rights act, which both he and the shameful democratic party had steadfastly opposed during the 50's.

The lie is in the claim that democrats became Republicans.

George Wallace, Bull Conner, Orval Faubus, and Fritz Hollings all died democrats. No matter how much you lie, the past cannot be altered.

The ONLY difference between Obama and George Wallace is the color of the skin of his targets. What your leftists cannot grasp is the concept of integrity, the basic fact that your racism is wrong, regardless of the target.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Well, they've done it again. Campaign contribution limits raised. Money talks, hey boys?

The Supremes are kicking ass when it comes to voting rights, aren't they? First, they OK voter ID requirements on the basis of bogus "election fraud" claims, thereby disenfranchising the poor, who don't have picure ID's many times (oh, yes - and who also vote predominately democratic as well). Now they lift the limits on campaign contributions so the rich can get rich and the poor can get poorer.

Our Supreme Court should not be a political tool. That's what it is today. Scalia should be excised from the Court along with his right-wing buddy, Clarence Thomas. They could also take the CJ with them on their way out the door.

SCOTUS screwed the pooch in upholding ObumblerCare as allegedly being "Constitutional." Libs applauded.

Now, when SCOTUS gets a few RIGHT, the libs carp and whine.

What a world.

The cons carped and whined when The Supremes upheld the Health Care Act. Now, they are applauding.

Ho-hum.

The conservatives DID complain about the infidelity to the law and his oath shown by the Chief Justice. We of course expected that kind of nonsensical crap from the entirely political left-wing "jurists."

In any event, what I pointed out was that you are DOING exactly what you are now claiming the "cons" did.

So, how are you different in principle?

 

[Meathead]

Well, they've done it again. Campaign contribution limits raised. Money talks, hey boys?

The Supremes are kicking ass when it comes to voting rights, aren't they? First, they OK voter ID requirements on the basis of bogus "election fraud" claims, thereby disenfranchising the poor, who don't have picure ID's many times (oh, yes - and who also vote predominately democratic as well). Now they lift the limits on campaign contributions so the rich can get rich and the poor can get poorer.

Our Supreme Court should not be a political tool. That's what it is today. Scalia should be excised from the Court along with his right-wing buddy, Clarence Thomas. They could also take the CJ with them on their way out the door.

Disappointed, George. So you want to deny the people the power to protect the franchise against fraud and deny them the right to challenge the political establishment, for make no mistake about it, all the demagoguery aside, that's who benefits otherwise. I took you for someone who could see past the shoeshine.

As a liberal, I am all in favor of giving the people the power to challenge the political establishment if, by "the people," we are talking about people from all levels of society, not just the wealthy.

And this is precisely why I authored this thread to begin with. This current Supreme Court decision gives the rich the power to influence the political landscape, but bestows no such benefit to the poor. In fact, it makes it more possible for the haves to shove it to the have-nots which is, of course, precisely the intent of this politically-oriented pack of hypocrites.

Pretty hackneyed stuff George. Are you trying to join the ranks of Luddy and the dingbat brigade? If so, why?