A new "constitutional right"
Cliff
Buy your rethugs now !!!
--
Cliff
Fred B. Brown
"Cliff" <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
news:d8a5m5h871mrcn45n...@4ax.com...
WRONG!! Read the ruling and get your facts straight.
"The direct political contribution prohibition in McCain-Feingold that
prevents corporations, labor unions, and advocacy groups from giving money
directly to candidates was not challenged in this case, thus its
constitutionality was not an issue before the court."
Thus corporations, labor unions still cannot give money directly to
a political candidate. What was declared unconstitutional was the
prohibition against these groups to advocate for or against a
candidate 60 days prior to an election.
Gray Ghost
$bb4e...@newscene.com:
Well, he's a leftist. You didn't actually expect him to get it right, did
you?
--
God, guns and guts made America great.
And Janet Napolitano nervous.
Which should tell you all you need to know about Democrats. How can one
restore America to greatness if greatness makes you uncomfortable?
nraclaptrap
> news:d8a5m5h871mrcn45n...@4ax.com...
>> Unlimited funding for office from unions.
>> Buy your rethugs now !!!
>> --
>> Cliff
>
> WRONG!! Read the ruling and get your facts straight.
> "The direct political contribution prohibition in McCain-Feingold that
> prevents corporations, labor unions, and advocacy groups from giving
> money directly to candidates was not challenged in this case, thus its
> constitutionality was not an issue before the court."
So corporations could spend unlimited amounts of money, they'd just have
to give it to a third party who supports the candidate and produces
commercials and buys airtime etc to elect the candidate, they just can't
hand the check to the candidate or his staff personally. They hand the
check to a guy standing right next to the candidate and that guy spends
the money that benefits the candidate.
Slicker'n shit through a goose, eh Mr. Brownoser?
We should change the election system so the Federalist Society Branch of
the US Supreme Court can't steal our fucking votes.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
RD (The Sandman)
news:d8a5m5h871mrcn45n...@4ax.com:
> Unlimited funding for office from unions.
> Buy your rethugs now !!!
Excuse me, but unions support the Dems and the decision was about
corporations and the last 60 days prior to an election.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Some points to ponder:
Why is it good if a vacuum cleaner really sucks?
Why is the third hand on a clock called the "second hand"?
Why did Kamikaze pilots wear helmets?
Why do we sing "Take me out to the ballgame" when we are already
there?
Wes
>So corporations could spend unlimited amounts of money, they'd just have
>to give it to a third party who supports the candidate and produces
>commercials and buys airtime etc to elect the candidate, they just can't
>hand the check to the candidate or his staff personally. They hand the
>check to a guy standing right next to the candidate and that guy spends
>the money that benefits the candidate.
Corporations have been giving money to politicians for years. Think book deals.
Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
Gray Ghost
news:Xns9D0F90B1C...@216.196.97.130:
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
> news:d8a5m5h871mrcn45n...@4ax.com:
>
>> Unlimited funding for office from unions.
>> Buy your rethugs now !!!
>
> Excuse me, but unions support the Dems and the decision was about
> corporations and the last 60 days prior to an election.
>
Do you expect Cliff to get anything right?
HH&C
wrote:
Kindly list all of the republicans taht receive union backing. Take
as much white space as necessary, or even a little more.
HH&C
wrote:
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote innews:Xns9D0F90B1C...@216.196.97.130:
>
> >news:d8a5m5h871mrcn45n...@4ax.com:
>
> >> Unlimited funding for office from unions.
> >> Buy your rethugs now !!!
>
> > Excuse me, but unions support the Dems and the decision was about
> > corporations and the last 60 days prior to an election.
>
> Do you expect Cliff to get anything right?
He manages to endorse those checks that Soros sends him every week.
Michael A. Terrell
Haven't you heard of 'Direct Deposit'?
--
Greed is the root of all eBay.
rangerssuck
@comcast.net> wrote:
> Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote innews:d8a5m5h871mrcn45n...@4ax.com:
>
> > Unlimited funding for office from unions.
> > Buy your rethugs now !!!
>
> Excuse me, but unions support the Dems and the decision was about
> corporations and the last 60 days prior to an election.
>
Do you really think that unions have money to spend that's anywhere
near what the likes of Exxon has?
tankfixer
@d14g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, range...@gmail.com says...
http://news.opb.org/article/6560-ballot-measure-spending-could-top-ten-
million/
The groups on both sides of Measures 66 and 67 have raised a combined
$8.5 million so far with no signs of slowing down.
The Vote No group is getting support from businesses. The Vote Yes
group, in favor of the taxes, is receiving most of its money from public
employee unions.
So far the Yes side is outspending the No side.
Janice Thompson of Common Cause Oregon says that's not surprising since
they'll have to work harder to convince undecided voters.
Janice Thompson: "They're more likely to sit out or when in doubt, vote
no. And so the yes side has to kind of get those default no kind of
voters and get people out."
Even at $10 million this wouldn't break the Oregon record for initiative
campaigns set in 2008.
That year unions raised more than $15 million to defeat a slate of
measures sponsored by initiative activist Bill Sizemore.
Cliff
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>news:d8a5m5h871mrcn45n...@4ax.com:
>
>> Unlimited funding for office from unions.
>> Buy your rethugs now !!!
>
>Excuse me, but unions support the Dems and the decision was about
>corporations and the last 60 days prior to an election.
The decision applied to unions.
Get YOUR facts right now & then at least.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/01/supreme-court-gives-corporatio.html
"Supreme Court Gives .... Unions Power to Spend Unlimited Sums on Political
Messaging"
" .. the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such groups may now spend unlimited
amounts of money advocating for or against politicians."
What better way to control things than to buy some rethugs?
--
Cliff
Cliff
Ghost) wrote:
>"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>news:Xns9D0F90B1C...@216.196.97.130:
>
>> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>> news:d8a5m5h871mrcn45n...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> Unlimited funding for office from unions.
>>> Buy your rethugs now !!!
>>
>> Excuse me, but unions support the Dems and the decision was about
>> corporations and the last 60 days prior to an election.
>>
>
>Do you expect Cliff to get anything right?
The decision applied to unions.
Get YOUR facts right now & then at least.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/01/supreme-court-gives-corporatio.html
"Supreme Court Gives .... Unions Power to Spend Unlimited Sums on Political
Messaging"
" .. the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such groups may now spend unlimited
amounts of money advocating for or against politicians."
What better way to control things than to buy some rethugs?
Found those "WMDs" yet?
--
Cliff
HH&C
wrote:
Cliff has no bank account. Cliff has no address, except for a bench
in the park. But Cliff does have a voter registration card... several
of them, in fact.
HH&C
> On Jan 29, 4:13 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
>
> @comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Unlimited funding for office from unions.
> > > Buy your rethugs now !!!
>
> > Excuse me, but unions support the Dems and the decision was about
> > corporations and the last 60 days prior to an election.
>
> near what the likes of Exxon has?
Exxon's contributions cancel themselves out. They back both sides.
Unions back one side.
HH&C
Cliff, if you don't know what to say, just go ask Soros.
Michael A. Terrell
No food stamp card?
Larry Jaques
<paul.c...@gmail.com> scrawled the following:
>In article <f47f6fa6-0b75-4ab6-ba39-0856bfb9e442
>@d14g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, range...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> On Jan 29, 4:13�pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
>> @comcast.net> wrote:
>> > Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote innews:d8a5m5h871mrcn45n...@4ax.com:
>> >
>> > > � Unlimited funding for office from unions.
>> > > � Buy your rethugs now !!!
>> >
>> > Excuse me, but unions support the Dems and the decision was about
>> > corporations and the last 60 days prior to an election.
>> >
>>
>> Do you really think that unions have money to spend that's anywhere
>> near what the likes of Exxon has?
>
>
>http://news.opb.org/article/6560-ballot-measure-spending-could-top-ten-
>million/
>
>The groups on both sides of Measures 66 and 67 have raised a combined
>$8.5 million so far with no signs of slowing down.
I read 6.5m yes, 4.85m no in my paper the day after the election.
>The Vote No group is getting support from businesses. The Vote Yes
>group, in favor of the taxes, is receiving most of its money from public
>employee unions.
>So far the Yes side is outspending the No side.
>Janice Thompson of Common Cause Oregon says that's not surprising since
>they'll have to work harder to convince undecided voters.
>Janice Thompson: "They're more likely to sit out or when in doubt, vote
>no. And so the yes side has to kind of get those default no kind of
>voters and get people out."
Both stinking tax initiatives passed, the fidiots.
--
Imagination is the beginning of creation. You imagine what you desire,
you will what you imagine and at last you create what you will.
-- George Bernard Shaw
No-bammer
> "Fred B. Brown" <fredb...@nowhere.com> wrote in news:4b62e1fa$0$8447
> $bb4e...@newscene.com:
>
>
>>"Cliff" <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
>>news:d8a5m5h871mrcn45n...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> Unlimited funding for office from unions.
>>> Buy your rethugs now !!!
>>>--
>>>Cliff
>>
>>WRONG!! Read the ruling and get your facts straight.
>>"The direct political contribution prohibition in McCain-Feingold that
>>prevents corporations, labor unions, and advocacy groups from giving money
>>directly to candidates was not challenged in this case, thus its
>>constitutionality was not an issue before the court."
>>
>>Thus corporations, labor unions still cannot give money directly to
>>a political candidate. What was declared unconstitutional was the
>>prohibition against these groups to advocate for or against a
>>candidate 60 days prior to an election.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Well, he's a leftist. You didn't actually expect him to get it right, did
> you?
>
Just like Buckwheat.
rangerssuck
> In article <f47f6fa6-0b75-4ab6-ba39-0856bfb9e442
And $15 million is about 0.03% of Exxon's PROFIT last year. A mere
drop in the bucket. The guys with the big money can now run their own
campaigns, dwarfing anything a candidate could reasonably do on his/
her own. Left, right, I don't really care (well, I do, but not in this
case). This ruling stinks.
Personally, I think the kind of spending that goes on in political
campaigns is obscene. To have a candidate talking about fixing the
economy or helping the poor or lowering the deficit while spending
tens or hundreds of millions on campaign signs and commercials is just
wrong. And that goes for BOTH sides. There's GOT to be a better way,
and letting big-money corporations run away with it is simply a giant
step in the wrong direction.
David R.Birch
> HH&C wrote:
>> On Jan 29, 10:20 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>> HH&C wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 29, 8:09 pm, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote innews:Xns9D0F90B1C...@216.196.97.130:
>>>>>> Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>>>>>> news:d8a5m5h871mrcn45n...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>> Unlimited funding for office from unions.
>>>>>>> Buy your rethugs now !!!
>>>>>> Excuse me, but unions support the Dems and the decision was about
>>>>>> corporations and the last 60 days prior to an election.
>>>>> Do you expect Cliff to get anything right?
>>>> He manages to endorse those checks that Soros sends him every week.
>>> Haven't you heard of 'Direct Deposit'?
>> Cliff has no bank account. Cliff has no address, except for a bench
>> in the park. But Cliff does have a voter registration card... several
>> of them, in fact.
>
>
> No food stamp card?
Software bots don't need them.
David
Michael A. Terrell
The morons who write them, do. :)
RD (The Sandman)
news:2vb8m55tos9qvdv43...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:09:54 -0600, grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com
> (Gray Ghost) wrote:
>
>>"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>news:Xns9D0F90B1C...@216.196.97.130:
>>
>>> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>>> news:d8a5m5h871mrcn45n...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> Unlimited funding for office from unions.
>>>> Buy your rethugs now !!!
>>>
>>> Excuse me, but unions support the Dems and the decision was about
>>> corporations and the last 60 days prior to an election.
>>>
>>
>>Do you expect Cliff to get anything right?
>
> The decision applied to unions.
The decision applied to unions *AND* corporations. The Democrats, of
course, are more concerned about the corporations getting their voice
back after losing it in McCain-Feingold than they are about the unions
getting theirs back. Ever wonder why?
> Get YOUR facts right now & then at least.
>
> http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/01/supreme-court-gives-corporati
> o.html "Supreme Court Gives .... Unions Power to Spend Unlimited
> Sums on Political
> Messaging"
> " .. the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such groups may now spend
> unlimited
> amounts of money advocating for or against politicians."
>
> What better way to control things than to buy some rethugs?
You think Dems aren't for sale? Ask Landrieu and Nelson. ;)
> Found those "WMDs" yet?
I'm not looking for them....are you?
RD (The Sandman)
news:f47f6fa6-0b75-4ab6...@d14g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 29, 4:13�pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
> @comcast.net> wrote:
>> Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote
>> innews:d8a5m5h871m
> rcn45nrdl24...@4ax.com:
>>
>> > � Unlimited funding for office from unions.
>> > � Buy your rethugs now !!!
>>
>> Excuse me, but unions support the Dems and the decision was about
>> corporations and the last 60 days prior to an election.
>>
>
> Do you really think that unions have money to spend that's anywhere
> near what the likes of Exxon has?
>
they will just get what they need from their members. You really think
that unions are non-profit? ;)
RD (The Sandman)
news:58be7593-d33b-4fdf...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 29, 11:49�pm, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <f47f6fa6-0b75-4ab6-ba39-0856bfb9e442
>> @d14g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, rangerss...@gmail.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 29, 4:13�pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
>> > @comcast.net> wrote:
>> > > Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote
>> > > innews:d8a5m5h
> 871mrcn45nrdl...@4ax.com:
>>
>> > > > � Unlimited funding for office from unions.
>> > > > � Buy your rethugs now !!!
>>
>> > > Excuse me, but unions support the Dems and the decision was about
>> > > corporations and the last 60 days prior to an election.
>>
>> > Do you really think that unions have money to spend that's anywhere
>> > near what the likes of Exxon has?
>>
>> http://news.opb.org/article/6560-ballot-measure-spending-could-top-ten
>> - million/
What it really did was reverse parts of McCain-Feingold.
RD (The Sandman)
news:knb8m5pgiumd1t9ba...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:13:28 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>>news:d8a5m5h871mrcn45n...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> Unlimited funding for office from unions.
>>> Buy your rethugs now !!!
>>
>>Excuse me, but unions support the Dems and the decision was about
>>corporations and the last 60 days prior to an election.
>
> The decision applied to unions.
*AND* corporations, mon ami. Unions typically support dems, not
republicans.
> Get YOUR facts right now & then at least.
You should do the same.
> http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/01/supreme-court-gives-corporati
> o.html "Supreme Court Gives .... Unions Power to Spend Unlimited
> Sums on Political
> Messaging"
> " .. the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such groups may now spend
> unlimited
> amounts of money advocating for or against politicians."
>
> What better way to control things than to buy some rethugs?
In lieu of buying democrats? ;)
Ed Huntress
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9D106D46F...@216.196.97.130...
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
> news:2vb8m55tos9qvdv43...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:09:54 -0600, grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com
>> (Gray Ghost) wrote:
>>
>>>"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>news:Xns9D0F90B1C...@216.196.97.130:
>>>
>>>> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>>>> news:d8a5m5h871mrcn45n...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Unlimited funding for office from unions.
>>>>> Buy your rethugs now !!!
>>>>
>>>> Excuse me, but unions support the Dems and the decision was about
>>>> corporations and the last 60 days prior to an election.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Do you expect Cliff to get anything right?
>>
>> The decision applied to unions.
>
> The decision applied to unions *AND* corporations.
There was no decision regarding unions. It would require another case to
decide it, and speculation is all over the map.
> The Democrats, of
> course, are more concerned about the corporations getting their voice
> back after losing it in McCain-Feingold than they are about the unions
> getting theirs back. Ever wonder why?
No question. The corporations are interested in things that will improve
their bottom line, like having the ability to move all their manufacturing
operations to China. Republicans are very GDP-centered and have favored
corporate interests since before the turn of the last century.
Democrats tend to look more at improving the incomes of people at the
bottom, which makes them a natural match for industrial unions and the
interests of their members.
We all learned this in grade school. It was one of the few things about
government and economics that our teachers got right.
>
>> Get YOUR facts right now & then at least.
>>
>> http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/01/supreme-court-gives-corporati
>> o.html "Supreme Court Gives .... Unions Power to Spend Unlimited
>> Sums on Political
>> Messaging"
>> " .. the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such groups may now spend
>> unlimited
>> amounts of money advocating for or against politicians."
They did not. Somebody didn't read the decision.
"Perhaps the most important question that one might ask in the wake of
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is: are labor unions as free
as corporations to spend as much as they wish -- independently of
candidates -- to influence elections to Congress and the White House? The
likely answer is: Probably, but check back later."
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/01/analysis-a-few-open-or-not-so-open-questions/
Like the Heller decision, this one leaves a lot of questions unanswered.
Expect a *lot* more litigation, in the lower federal courts, that will keep
the issues boiling for a long time.
Ed Huntress
> rangerssuck <range...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:f47f6fa6-0b75-4ab6...@d14g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Jan 29, 4:13 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
>> @comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote
>>> innews:d8a5m5h871m
>> rcn45nrdl24...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>> > Unlimited funding for office from unions.
>>> > Buy your rethugs now !!!
>>>
>>> Excuse me, but unions support the Dems and the decision was about
>>> corporations and the last 60 days prior to an election.
>>>
>>
>> Do you really think that unions have money to spend that's anywhere
>> near what the likes of Exxon has?
>>
>
> they will just get what they need from their members. You really think
> that unions are non-profit? ;)
Yeah, they are non-profit. If you disagree, please explain.
--
Ed Huntress
dca...@krl.org
> "Perhaps the most important question that one might ask in the wake of
> Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is: are labor unions as free
> as corporations to spend as much as they wish -- independently of
> candidates -- to influence elections to Congress and the White House? The
> likely answer is: Probably, but check back later."
>
As I read the decision it struck down the limits on both Corporations
and Unions. Since the decision was made on a case involving a
corporation, corporations are mentioned more than Unions. But it
seems pretty clear to me that it affects both unions and
corporations. Excerpt from Wiki follows:
The decision is too long to post here.
Dan
The Court's decision struck down a provision of the McCain-Feingold
Act that banned for-profit and not-for-profit corporations and unions
from broadcasting “electioneering communications” in the 30 days
before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general
elections.[2] The decision completely overruled Austin v. Michigan
Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v.
Federal Election Commission (2003).[4] The decision upheld the
requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by sponsors of
advertisements, and the ban on direct contributions from corporations
or unions to candidates, in part IV.[5]
Ed Huntress
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:b53ce510-e1f1-4c12...@o36g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
You can read it any way you like, but, even though the Court treated the
case as a facial confrontation with the 1st Amendment, and it was a sweeping
decision, the actual decision was that the part of McCain-Feingold that
applies to corporations was overturned.
As the ScotusBlog entry says, it's likely that the courts will apply the
principle to unions, as well. But the decision did not overturn
McCain-Feingold; it only overturned the application of it to corporations.
This may seem like threading a needle but that's precisely what you have to
do with Supreme Court decisions. Don't make assumptions.
--
Ed Huntress
RogerN
> Buy your rethugs now !!!
> Cliff
Ha ha, 100% of the Unions supporting politicians I have seen has been that
they ONLY support Democrat Politicians. There may be some cases where a
union has supported a Republican, but I've never seen it.
RogerN
awthrawthr
> "Fred B. Brown" <fredbbr...@nowhere.com> wrote innews:4b62e1fa$0$8447$bb4e...@newscene.com:
>
> > "Cliff" <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
> >news:d8a5m5h871mrcn45n...@4ax.com...
> >> Unlimited funding for office from unions.
> >> Buy your rethugs now !!!
> >> --
> >> Cliff
>
> > "The direct political contribution prohibition in McCain-Feingold that
> > prevents corporations, labor unions, and advocacy groups from giving
> > money directly to candidates was not challenged in this case, thus its
> > constitutionality was not an issue before the court."
>
> to give it to a third party who supports the candidate and produces
> commercials and buys airtime etc to elect the candidate, they just can't
> hand the check to the candidate or his staff personally. They hand the
> check to a guy standing right next to the candidate and that guy spends
> the money that benefits the candidate.
>
> Slicker'n shit through a goose, eh Mr. Brownoser?
>
> We should change the election system so the Federalist Society Branch of
> the US Supreme Court can't steal our fucking votes.
>
> --
>
> NRACLAPTRAP
Wrong, bozo, as usual.
The ruling allows coprorations to be on equal footing with unions. Now
both can advertise for the candidates of their choice or disparage
their political opponents. The same for referendums.
Previously unions could advertise all they wanted, but not
corporations and nonprofits.
BTW, Obamao lied when he tried to intimidate the Supreme Court during
the SOTU address. Obamao claimed the recent ruling overturned a 100
year precedent. That was utter bullshit. The ruling overturned part of
the McCain Feingold bill.
The 100-year-old ruling that corporations can't give donations to
politicians still stands.
Meanwhile, during Obamao's 2008 campaign, he received about $900
million in donations, some of which came from foreign citizens from
foreign countries. That's highly illegal, of course. IOW, Obamao is
upset because he's afraid of losing his illegal advantage.
nraclaptrap
news:a5bc6dd9-6406-46dd...@l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>> >> �Unlimited funding for office from unions.
>> >> �Buy your rethugs now !!!
>> >> --
>> >> Cliff
>>
>> > WRONG!! Read the ruling and get your facts straight.
>> > "The direct political contribution prohibition in McCain-Feingold
>> > that prevents corporations, labor unions, and advocacy groups from
>> > giving money directly to candidates was not challenged in this
>> > case, thus its constitutionality was not an issue before the
>> > court."
>>
>> So corporations could spend unlimited amounts of money, they'd just
>> have to give it to a third party who supports the candidate and
>> produces commercials and buys airtime etc to elect the candidate,
>> they just can't hand the check to the candidate or his staff
>> personally. �They hand the check to a guy standing right next to the
>> candidate and that guy spends the money that benefits the candidate.
>>
>> Slicker'n shit through a goose, eh Mr. Brownoser?
>>
>> We should change the election system so the Federalist Society Branch
>> of the US Supreme Court can't steal our fucking votes.
>
> Wrong, bozo, as usual.
>
> The ruling allows coprorations to be on equal footing with unions.
Oh, then unions should get government subsidies so they can compete with
the virtually unlimited funds that corporations have; then the
corporations and unions would be equally able to influence elections?
Never mind.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
HH&C
> "Cliff" <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
>
> news:d8a5m5h871mrcn45n...@4ax.com...
>
> > Buy your rethugs now !!!
> > --
> > Cliff
>
> they ONLY support Democrat Politicians. There may be some cases where a
> union has supported a Republican, but I've never seen it.
>
> RogerN
I've never seen it either. You should see their literature.
RD (The Sandman)
news:0NudnbY0NcPtO_nW...@earthlink.com:
Occasionally.....I saw a tidbit on the TV yesterday which claimed that
corporations were about 55-45% for Republican candidates and unions were
about 92-8% for Democrat ones.
RD (The Sandman)
> On Jan 29, 2:43�pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> "Fred B. Brown" <fredbbr...@nowhere.com> wrote
>> innews:4b62e1fa$0$8447$bb4
Obama was also wrong about that decision opening the floodgates for
foreign entities to play in our political process. For a "constitutional
scholar", he really dropped the ball on that one.
awthrawthr
Unions have spent HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars for their political
view points. There is no limit they are allowed to spend. Meanwhile,
the overturned law prohibited corporations and non-profits from
spending a nickel in the last 60 days prior to an election.
So you would like for the unions to maintain their unfair advantage -
an advantage given only because they had the political clout to have
the original law written that way.
> Never mind.
Yeah, never mind. You really should quit while you're so far behind.
> NRACLAPTRAP- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wildbilly
<0d13eea3-6bb1-4d49...@z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
"HH&C" <hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Make that, they've bought both sides. Which is to say, both side back
Exxon.
>
> Unions back one side.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100119/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_arresting_activists
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/19/headlines
tankfixer
21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, range...@gmail.com says...
That $15 million was for a state measure the unions desperately wanted
passed.
In Oregon there is nothing that would have stopped a corporation from
spending whatever they wished to defeat it.
Yet that never happens.
We DO see the unions pour tons of their members money into schemes to
fleece the public.
>
> Personally, I think the kind of spending that goes on in political
> campaigns is obscene. To have a candidate talking about fixing the
> economy or helping the poor or lowering the deficit while spending
> tens or hundreds of millions on campaign signs and commercials is just
> wrong. And that goes for BOTH sides. There's GOT to be a better way,
> and letting big-money corporations run away with it is simply a giant
> step in the wrong direction.
So suggest a better way that doesn't violate a persons right to express
their political views.
Otherwise you are just whining.
tankfixer
Sandman)" says...
That is what upsets the left so much.
They thought they had a law there to muzzle their opponents.
In fact a group that produced a movie very critical of Hillary Clinton
chose not to air it for fear of being prosecuted under McCain-Feingold.
nraclaptrap
news:00a49c07-edee-4810...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 30, 4:00�pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> awthrawthr <awthraw...@gmail.com> wrote
>> innews:a5bc6dd9-6406-46dd-ac97-ba
> a9555...@l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> �Unlimited funding for office from unions.
So show me.
https://opensecrets.org/index.php
--
NRACLAPTRAP
awthrawthr
> awthrawthr <awthraw...@gmail.com> wrote innews:00a49c07-edee-4810...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 30, 4:00 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> awthrawthr <awthraw...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> innews:a5bc6dd9-6406-46dd-ac97-ba
Your link has a bad security certificate. Figures.
>
> --
Harold Burton
nraclaptrap <nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
You just did.
Snicker.
Harold Burton
Buerste
"nraclaptrap" <nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9D10A2D99FE2Cp...@216.196.97.131...
Unions are heavily subsidized by the government, don't you ever read
anything other than "Fringe Left Talking Points Weekly"?
Chaos out of Order
corrupting our democracy. If we were to analyze the voting record of
Congress for the last fifty years and compare that to the expenditures
of corporations on candidates during that same period, I bet there is
a direct correlation between the two. Just looking at the voting
record of Democrats over the last twenty years shows that Democrats
have increasingly voted in favor of corporations over workers and
consumers and the environment.
Is the Supreme Court protecting free speech or the demolishing of
democracy? Keep in mind that there are a lot of people on the right
who think that not everyone should be allowed to vote. I wouldn't be
surprised if three or four of the Justices feel this way. Remember
how they easily threw out votes in 2000?
The Supreme Court has started a battle to ruin democracy and it's time
that we push back against those who don't believe in our system.
RD (The Sandman)
news:MPG.25ce879...@news.bytemine.net:
> In article <Xns9D106EB31...@216.196.97.130>, "RD (The
> Sandman)" says...
>>
>> rangerssuck <range...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:58be7593-d33b-4fdf...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Jan 29, 11:49�pm, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <f47f6fa6-0b75-4ab6-ba39-0856bfb9e442
>> >> @d14g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, rangerss...@gmail.com says...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > On Jan 29, 4:13�pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
>> >> > @comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> > > Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote
>> >> > > innews:d8a5m5h
>> > 871mrcn45nrdl...@4ax.com:
>> >>
>> >> > > > � Unlimited funding for office from unions.
>> >> > > > � Buy your rethugs now !!!
>> >>
>> >> > > Excuse me, but unions support the Dems and the decision was
>> >> > > about corporations and the last 60 days prior to an election.
>> >>
>> >> > Do you really think that unions have money to spend that's
>> >> > anywhere near what the likes of Exxon has?
>> >>
>> >> http://news.opb.org/article/6560-ballot-measure-spending-could-top-
>> >> ten - million/
Yep, which was one reason I was surprized that McCain was a co-sponsor.
> In fact a group that produced a movie very critical of Hillary Clinton
> chose not to air it for fear of being prosecuted under
> McCain-Feingold.
That group was the case that the Supremes just decided.
RD (The Sandman)
914E1E.165...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au:
> In article
> <0d13eea3-6bb1-4d49...@z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> "HH&C" <hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 29, 10:30�pm, rangerssuck <rangerss...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Jan 29, 4:13�pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
>> >
>> > @comcast.net> wrote:
>> > > Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote
>> > > innews:d8a5m5h871mrcn45n...@4ax.com:
>> >
>> > > > � Unlimited funding for office from unions.
>> > > > � Buy your rethugs now !!!
>> >
>> > > Excuse me, but unions support the Dems and the decision was about
>> > > corporations and the last 60 days prior to an election.
>> >
>> > Do you really think that unions have money to spend that's anywhere
>> > near what the likes of Exxon has?
>>
>> Exxon's contributions cancel themselves out. They back both sides.
>
> Make that, they've bought both sides. Which is to say, both side back
> Exxon.
Payback's a bitch, eh? ;)
Ed Huntress
> Wildbilly <wldbilly@without_a.net> wrote in news:wldbilly-
> 914E1E.165...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au:
>
>> In article
>> <0d13eea3-6bb1-4d49...@z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>> "HH&C" <hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 29, 10:30 pm, rangerssuck <rangerss...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > On Jan 29, 4:13 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
>>> >
>>> > @comcast.net> wrote:
>>> > > Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote
>>> > > innews:d8a5m5h871mrcn45n...@4ax.com:
>>> >
>>> > > > Unlimited funding for office from unions.
>>> > > > Buy your rethugs now !!!
>>> >
>>> > > Excuse me, but unions support the Dems and the decision was about
>>> > > corporations and the last 60 days prior to an election.
>>> >
>>> > Do you really think that unions have money to spend that's anywhere
>>> > near what the likes of Exxon has?
>>>
>>> Exxon's contributions cancel themselves out. They back both sides.
>>
>> Make that, they've bought both sides. Which is to say, both side back
>> Exxon.
>
> Payback's a bitch, eh? ;)
"Payback" by whom, RD? It sounds like you're saying that Exxon's and other
multinationals' international financial interests are now overwhelming the
political messages for our entire political system, and that you think this
is a good idea. Right?
This reminds me of a comment made by David Brooks some years ago at a
Republican house party, in which someone commented that bankers are running
the country. "That sounds like a good idea to me," said Brooks. He seems to
have changed his tune in recent years. And I suspect that the right-wingers
who are gloating now are going to have reason to follow the same course,
wondering what they have wrought, and why they did it.
--
Ed Huntress
Larry Jaques
<bue...@wowway.com> scrawled the following:
http://fwd4.me/Dfg As Michelle Malkin points out, they gave to O and
now he's giving back...
--
Imagination is the beginning of creation. You imagine what you desire,
you will what you imagine and at last you create what you will.
-- George Bernard Shaw
William Wixon
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b65b93c$0$22540$607e...@cv.net...
>
>>
>> Payback's a bitch, eh? ;)
>
> "Payback" by whom, RD? It sounds like you're saying that Exxon's and other
> multinationals' international financial interests are now overwhelming the
> political messages for our entire political system, and that you think
> this is a good idea. Right?
>
> This reminds me of a comment made by David Brooks some years ago at a
> Republican house party, in which someone commented that bankers are
> running the country. "That sounds like a good idea to me," said Brooks. He
> seems to have changed his tune in recent years. And I suspect that the
> right-wingers who are gloating now are going to have reason to follow the
> same course, wondering what they have wrought, and why they did it.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
>
they'll blame it on bill clinton, or barack (hussein) obama.
b.w.
William Wixon
"William Wixon" <wwi...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:Wyj9n.50460$s%.47289@newsfe18.iad...
and they'll be bellyaching if saudi arabia bankrolls a democrat's television
campaign ads, and he WINS. undue outside influence. seems to me you're
mistaken if you think this is a good thing.
William Wixon
>>>>
>>>> Exxon's contributions cancel themselves out. They back both sides.
>>>
>>> Make that, they've bought both sides. Which is to say, both side back
>>> Exxon.
>>
>> Payback's a bitch, eh? ;)
>
> "Payback" by whom, RD? It sounds like you're saying that Exxon's and other
> multinationals' international financial interests are now overwhelming the
> political messages for our entire political system, and that you think
> this is a good idea. Right?
>
> This reminds me of a comment made by David Brooks some years ago at a
> Republican house party, in which someone commented that bankers are
> running the country. "That sounds like a good idea to me," said Brooks. He
> seems to have changed his tune in recent years. And I suspect that the
> right-wingers who are gloating now are going to have reason to follow the
> same course, wondering what they have wrought, and why they did it.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
>
this supreme court decision is like a science fiction story.
i bet right now some mixed race woman that was born (and doesn't have a
birth certificate no doubt) in beijing has been groomed for the past 40
years, currently resides in the u.s. and she'll be nominated for the '12
election cycle to become the president of the united states, and her entire
campaign will be financed by the chicoms. they've got us by the balls.
b.w.
Stormin Mormon
learn of other countries, and their problems.
I live in a place called New York, which is with in the
United States of America. We have a Constitutional Republic.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Chaos out of Order" <goof...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c1e38e4f-d50e-4d27...@q2g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
nraclaptrap
news:11f44a2a-b7ba-4e6d...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
>> >> >> >> �Unlimited funding for office from unions.
You just realized you're demonstrably full of shit, eh Lil Lord Hawhaw?
POINT PROVEN!
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
tankfixer
I know..
One reason I had a hard time supporting him in the end..
>
> > In fact a group that produced a movie very critical of Hillary Clinton
> > chose not to air it for fear of being prosecuted under
> > McCain-Feingold.
>
> That group was the case that the Supremes just decided.
I hope they release the movie ...
Or has it but the press has given it no notice ?
nraclaptrap
FB3646.221...@news.newsguy.com:
Then show us the unions that spent hundreds of millions of dollars.
Look under lobbying, "Top Spenders" 1998-2009. How many unions do you see
listed, Geraldo?
[begin text]
Lobbying Client Total
US Chamber of Commerce $536,161,380
American Medical Assn $220,832,500
General Electric $193,079,000
AARP $175,702,064
American Hospital Assn $169,753,951
Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs
of America $167,623,920
AT&T Inc $149,295,316
Northrop Grumman $142,565,253
Exxon Mobil $138,466,942
National Assn of Realtors $138,417,380
Business Roundtable $134,030,000
Edison Electric Institute $133,995,999
Blue Cross/Blue Shield $133,649,577
Verizon Communications $130,793,908
Lockheed Martin $122,200,423
Boeing Co $121,528,310
General Motors $107,691,483
Southern Co $101,493,194
Freddie Mac $96,194,048
Altria Group $93,650,000
[end text]
tankfixer
nracl...@invalid.invalid says...
Actually my browser gave the same response....
awthrawthr
>
> - Show quoted text -
You sent a poison link. That makes you a certifiable asshole.
awthrawthr
> Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:hal.i.burton-
> FB3646.22163930012...@news.newsguy.com:
>
> - Show quoted text -
You're a real moron. Political advertising is a different category
than is lobbying for a particular bill. I told you to quit while you
were so far behind, but you didn't listen.
tankfixer
nracl...@invalid.invalid says...
> Freddie Mac $96,194,048
WTF is Freedie Mac doing lobbying !?!?
tankfixer
@k41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, awthr...@gmail.com says...
the OP doesn't actually believe in freedom for all, just those he agrees
with
HH&C
> In article
> <0d13eea3-6bb1-4d49-844f-1bee824fb...@z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> "HH&C" <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 29, 10:30 pm, rangerssuck <rangerss...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 29, 4:13 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
>
> > > @comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote
> > > > innews:d8a5m5h871mrcn45n...@4ax.com:
>
> > > > > Unlimited funding for office from unions.
> > > > > Buy your rethugs now !!!
>
> > > > Excuse me, but unions support the Dems and the decision was about
> > > > corporations and the last 60 days prior to an election.
>
> > > Do you really think that unions have money to spend that's anywhere
> > > near what the likes of Exxon has?
>
> > Exxon's contributions cancel themselves out. They back both sides.
>
> Make that, they've bought both sides. Which is to say, both side back
> Exxon.
Too big to fail, right?
and, we needed a really big number.
> > Unions back one side.
>
> --
> "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
> merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100119/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_arrestin...http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/19/headlines- Hide quoted text -
nraclaptrap
news:b3297934-55e0-445f...@k41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>> >> >> >> >> �Unlimited funding for office from unions.
> You're a real moron. Political advertising is a different category
> than is lobbying for a particular bill.
This represents all spending intended to influence politicians, their
policies and their elections.
We can also do individual bills. Name one and then tell us how much
money was spent on it and who spent it.
Or are you incapable of that too, Lil Lord Haw-haw?
--
NRACLAPTRAP
awthrawthr
>
> - Show quoted text -
Do you have even clue regarding the difference between lobbying for
specific bills and political advertising for or against candidates??
Apparently not. Figures.
Hawke
> On Jan 29, 4:26 am, Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om>
> wrote:
>> Unlimited funding for office from unions.
>> Buy your rethugs now !!!
>> --
>> Cliff
>
> as much white space as necessary, or even a little more.
Why don't you tell us how much unions contribute to political campaigns.
In total. Then tell us how much America's businesses spend to get
politicians they want elected into office. Here's a clue. Business
spends tons more on elections than unions do. You know that, right?
Hawke
Cliff
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>news:2vb8m55tos9qvdv43...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:09:54 -0600, grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com
>> (Gray Ghost) wrote:
>>
>>>"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>news:Xns9D0F90B1C...@216.196.97.130:
>>>
>>>> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>>>> news:d8a5m5h871mrcn45n...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Unlimited funding for office from unions.
>>>>> Buy your rethugs now !!!
>>>>
>>>> Excuse me, but unions support the Dems and the decision was about
>>>> corporations and the last 60 days prior to an election.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Do you expect Cliff to get anything right?
>>
>> The decision applied to unions.
>
>The decision applied to unions *AND* corporations.
So the wingers just lied again when they implied or stated
that it did NOT apply to unions?
What a shock !!
>The Democrats, of
>course, are more concerned about the corporations getting their voice
>back after losing it in McCain-Feingold than they are about the unions
>getting theirs back. Ever wonder why?
It was the conservative wing of the supreme court IIRC.
"corporations getting their voice back"?
They never got to do such before do how is it "back"?
"We the people" NOT "We the corporations".
How many votes do they get?
Is Exxon in jail? Is bushco?
>
>> Get YOUR facts right now & then at least.
>>
>> http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/01/supreme-court-gives-corporati
>> o.html "Supreme Court Gives .... Unions Power to Spend Unlimited
>> Sums on Political
>> Messaging"
>> " .. the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such groups may now spend
>> unlimited
>> amounts of money advocating for or against politicians."
>>
>> What better way to control things than to buy some rethugs?
>
>You think Dems aren't for sale? Ask Landrieu and Nelson. ;)
What better way to control things than to buy some rethugs?
>
>> Found those "WMDs" yet?
>
>I'm not looking for them....are you?
Ask your buddies.
--
Cliff
Cliff
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>news:knb8m5pgiumd1t9ba...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:13:28 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>>>news:d8a5m5h871mrcn45n...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> Unlimited funding for office from unions.
>>>> Buy your rethugs now !!!
>>>
>>>Excuse me, but unions support the Dems and the decision was about
>>>corporations and the last 60 days prior to an election.
>>
>> The decision applied to unions.
>
>*AND* corporations, mon ami. Unions typically support dems, not
>republicans.
Did it apply to unions?
Yes or no.
>> Get YOUR facts right now & then at least.
>
>You should do the same.
I was correct.
I still am.
>
>> http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/01/supreme-court-gives-corporati
>> o.html "Supreme Court Gives .... Unions Power to Spend Unlimited
>> Sums on Political
>> Messaging"
>> " .. the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such groups may now spend
>> unlimited
>> amounts of money advocating for or against politicians."
>>
>> What better way to control things than to buy some rethugs?
>
>In lieu of buying democrats? ;)
Why would you have to buy them to do the right thing?
--
Cliff
Cliff
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>"RogerN" <re...@midwest.net> wrote in
>news:0NudnbY0NcPtO_nW...@earthlink.com:
>
>>
>> "Cliff" <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
>> news:d8a5m5h871mrcn45n...@4ax.com...
>>> Unlimited funding for office from unions.
>>> Buy your rethugs now !!!
>>> --
>>> Cliff
>>
>> Ha ha, 100% of the Unions supporting politicians I have seen has been
>> that they ONLY support Democrat Politicians. There may be some cases
>> where a union has supported a Republican, but I've never seen it.
>
>Occasionally.....I saw a tidbit on the TV yesterday which claimed that
>corporations were about 55-45% for Republican candidates and unions were
>about 92-8% for Democrat ones.
95% of the time the guy with the most money wins.
Unless he spent it on golf it now seems ....
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/indianas-buyer-announces-retirement/
" .. makes him the 15th House Republican to announce they would not stand for
re-election in 2010."
--
Cliff
HH&C
Why don't you tell me how many businesses print magazines telling
their members/employees how to vote.
nraclaptrap
news:8f5f9f12-5339-4478...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 31, 9:15�pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> awthrawthr <awthraw...@gmail.com> wrote
>> innews:b3297934-55e0-445f-9901-d6
> 57f24...@k41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> �Unlimited funding for office from unions.
>> >> AARP � � � � � � � � � � � � � �$175,702,0
> Do you have even clue regarding the difference between lobbying for
> specific bills and political advertising for or against candidates??
> Apparently not. Figures.
You said "unions have spent hundreds of millions of dollars for their
political viewpoints". Okay punk, SHOW ME THE MONEY.
Or run away crying like a little baby, Lil Lord Wah-wah.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
news:MPG.25cfbb5...@news.bytemine.net:
>> >> >> >> >> �Unlimited funding for office from unions.
You guys use Internet Exploder, right? Firefox gave me a warning too, but
it also gives me the ability to override a false alarm...
How conveniant that you never have to find out how fucking wrong you are
about everything, eh Extremely Small Pall?
Dismissed.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
news:bdefdb83-92f5-4005...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 31, 5:15�pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> awthrawthr <awthraw...@gmail.com> wrote
>> innews:11f44a2a-b7ba-4e6d-925c-f5
> b2e77...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> >> >> �Unlimited funding for office from unions.
> You sent a poison link. That makes you a certifiable asshole.
It's only a "poison link" because it makes you look like a fucking idiot,
eh Lil Lord Haw-haw?
Haw haw haw haw haw.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:16:28 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> "RogerN" <re...@midwest.net> wrote in
>> news:0NudnbY0NcPtO_nW...@earthlink.com:
>>
>>>
>>> "Cliff" <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
>>> news:d8a5m5h871mrcn45n...@4ax.com...
>>>> Unlimited funding for office from unions.
>>>> Buy your rethugs now !!!
>>>> --
>>>> Cliff
>>>
>>> Ha ha, 100% of the Unions supporting politicians I have seen has been
>>> that they ONLY support Democrat Politicians. There may be some cases
>>> where a union has supported a Republican, but I've never seen it.
>>
>> Occasionally.....I saw a tidbit on the TV yesterday which claimed that
>> corporations were about 55-45% for Republican candidates and unions were
>> about 92-8% for Democrat ones.
>
> 95% of the time the guy with the most money wins.
In all the recent elections I can remember, the Democrats had more
money, be it from Chinese business men or from overseas from the likes
of Hesbala.
--
Middle Class Warrior
> On Jan 30, 4:36 pm, "RogerN" <re...@midwest.net> wrote:
>> "Cliff" <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
>>
>> news:d8a5m5h871mrcn45n...@4ax.com...
>>
>> > Unlimited funding for office from unions.
>> > Buy your rethugs now !!!
>> > --
>> > Cliff
>>
>> Ha ha, 100% of the Unions supporting politicians I have seen has been
>> that they ONLY support Democrat Politicians. There may be some cases
>> where a union has supported a Republican, but I've never seen it.
>>
>> RogerN
>
> I've never seen it either. You should see their literature.
Only 10 per cent of US corporations have unions. Why are you so afraid of
them. Corporations have a far bigger resources than unions do.
--
Rightardia: Progressive news with an international flavor. Visit us at http:
rightardia.blospot.com.
RD (The Sandman)
news:MPG.25cfa6b...@news.bytemine.net:
>> >> >> op- ten - million/
One reason I didn't support him in the end.
>> > In fact a group that produced a movie very critical of Hillary
>> > Clinton chose not to air it for fear of being prosecuted under
>> > McCain-Feingold.
>>
>> That group was the case that the Supremes just decided.
>
> I hope they release the movie ...
> Or has it but the press has given it no notice ?
Don't know.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Some points to ponder:
Why is it good if a vacuum cleaner really sucks?
Why is the third hand on a clock called the "second hand"?
Why did Kamikaze pilots wear helmets?
Why do we sing "Take me out to the ballgame" when we are already
there?
RD (The Sandman)
news:ir9dm5t5uu1q7b1cp...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 11:44:35 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>>news:2vb8m55tos9qvdv43...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:09:54 -0600, grey_ghost471-
newsg...@yahoo.com
>>> (Gray Ghost) wrote:
>>>
>>>>"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>news:Xns9D0F90B1C...@216.196.97.130:
>>>>
>>>>> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>>>>> news:d8a5m5h871mrcn45n...@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Unlimited funding for office from unions.
>>>>>> Buy your rethugs now !!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Excuse me, but unions support the Dems and the decision was about
>>>>> corporations and the last 60 days prior to an election.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Do you expect Cliff to get anything right?
>>>
>>> The decision applied to unions.
>>
>>The decision applied to unions *AND* corporations.
>
> So the wingers just lied again when they implied or stated
> that it did NOT apply to unions?
> What a shock !!
I haven't seen where they did that.
>>The Democrats, of
>>course, are more concerned about the corporations getting their voice
>>back after losing it in McCain-Feingold than they are about the unions
>>getting theirs back. Ever wonder why?
>
> It was the conservative wing of the supreme court IIRC.
> "corporations getting their voice back"?
>
> They never got to do such before do how is it "back"?
> "We the people" NOT "We the corporations".
Yes, they did. The two laws that were overturned were passed in 1993 and
2004. One of which was McCain-Feingold which stopped corporations and
advocacy groups from getting behind (or against) specific candidates
during the last 60 days of a campaign.
> How many votes do they get?
> Is Exxon in jail? Is bushco?
That has exactly what to do with your concern?
>>> Get YOUR facts right now & then at least.
>>>
>>> http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/01/supreme-court-gives-
corporati
>>> o.html "Supreme Court Gives .... Unions Power to Spend Unlimited
>>> Sums on Political
>>> Messaging"
>>> " .. the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such groups may now spend
>>> unlimited
>>> amounts of money advocating for or against politicians."
>>>
>>> What better way to control things than to buy some rethugs?
>>
>>You think Dems aren't for sale? Ask Landrieu and Nelson. ;)
>
> What better way to control things than to buy some rethugs?
Those are done to both sides of the aisle or do you think Soros is a
right wing supporter?
>>> Found those "WMDs" yet?
>>
>>I'm not looking for them....are you?
>
> Ask your buddies.
I don't know of any of my buddies who are looking. How about yours?
RD (The Sandman)
news:s7adm55fsqvc7j12t...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 11:54:32 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>>news:knb8m5pgiumd1t9ba...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:13:28 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
>>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>>>>news:d8a5m5h871mrcn45n...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Unlimited funding for office from unions.
>>>>> Buy your rethugs now !!!
>>>>
>>>>Excuse me, but unions support the Dems and the decision was about
>>>>corporations and the last 60 days prior to an election.
>>>
>>> The decision applied to unions.
>>
>>*AND* corporations, mon ami. Unions typically support dems, not
>>republicans.
>
> Did it apply to unions?
> Yes or no.
Yep.
>>> Get YOUR facts right now & then at least.
>>
>>You should do the same.
>
> I was correct.
> I still am.
LOL!
>>> http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/01/supreme-court-gives-
corporati
>>> o.html "Supreme Court Gives .... Unions Power to Spend Unlimited
>>> Sums on Political
>>> Messaging"
>>> " .. the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such groups may now spend
>>> unlimited
>>> amounts of money advocating for or against politicians."
>>>
>>> What better way to control things than to buy some rethugs?
>>
>>In lieu of buying democrats? ;)
>
> Why would you have to buy them to do the right thing?
You don't think things through very far, do you. You think Barney Frank
has his thoughts on a square deal for American any more than Republicans
do? Both sides have their vision of America and what things are correct.
The visions on how to get there are different but the methodologies are
the same.
RD (The Sandman)
news:ecadm516nck9unkn7...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:16:28 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>"RogerN" <re...@midwest.net> wrote in
>>news:0NudnbY0NcPtO_nW...@earthlink.com:
>>
>>>
>>> "Cliff" <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
>>> news:d8a5m5h871mrcn45n...@4ax.com...
>>>> Unlimited funding for office from unions.
>>>> Buy your rethugs now !!!
>>>> --
>>>> Cliff
>>>
>>> Ha ha, 100% of the Unions supporting politicians I have seen has
>>> been that they ONLY support Democrat Politicians. There may be some
>>> cases where a union has supported a Republican, but I've never seen
>>> it.
>>
>>Occasionally.....I saw a tidbit on the TV yesterday which claimed that
>>corporations were about 55-45% for Republican candidates and unions
>>were about 92-8% for Democrat ones.
>
> 95% of the time the guy with the most money wins.
Oh, well.....then you best get off your ass and start selling some
lemonade. ;)
Beam Me Up Scotty
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
> news:ecadm516nck9unkn7...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:16:28 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "RogerN" <re...@midwest.net> wrote in
>>> news:0NudnbY0NcPtO_nW...@earthlink.com:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Cliff" <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
>>>> news:d8a5m5h871mrcn45n...@4ax.com...
>>>>> Unlimited funding for office from unions.
>>>>> Buy your rethugs now !!!
>>>>> --
>>>>> Cliff
>>>>
>>>> Ha ha, 100% of the Unions supporting politicians I have seen has
>>>> been that they ONLY support Democrat Politicians. There may be some
>>>> cases where a union has supported a Republican, but I've never seen
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> Occasionally.....I saw a tidbit on the TV yesterday which claimed that
>>> corporations were about 55-45% for Republican candidates and unions
>>> were about 92-8% for Democrat ones.
>>
>> 95% of the time the guy with the most money wins.
Does that mean we'll get laws that are actually helpful to the
Capitalism that pays all the Nations bills?
--
Kirk Gordon
Hah! With the national debt approaching 15 trillion dollars, it
doesn't look to me like anybody's paying ANY of the bills.
KG
tankfixer
nracl...@invalid.invalid says...
No, I don't normally use explorer but I tried your link in it and it
gave a warning the security certificate was invalid as did my usual
browser.
So you routinly ignore such warnings ?
I hope you back your data up...
>
> How conveniant that you never have to find out how fucking wrong you are
> about everything, eh Extremely Small Pall?
Nope, I chose not to go look at a website that can't be bothered to keep
itself properly maintained.
Cliff
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Did it apply to unions?
>> Yes or no.
>
>Yep.
>
>>>> Get YOUR facts right now & then at least.
>>>
>>>You should do the same.
>>
>> I was correct.
>> I still am.
>
>LOL!
And you now agree with me <VBG>.
--
Cliff
Cliff
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/01/supreme-court-gives-
>corporati
>>>> o.html "Supreme Court Gives .... Unions Power to Spend Unlimited
>>>> Sums on Political
>>>> Messaging"
>>>> " .. the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such groups may now spend
>>>> unlimited
>>>> amounts of money advocating for or against politicians."
>>>>
>>>> What better way to control things than to buy some rethugs?
>>>
>>>In lieu of buying democrats? ;)
>>
>> Why would you have to buy them to do the right thing?
>
>You don't think things through very far, do you. You think Barney Frank
>has his thoughts on a square deal for American any more than Republicans
>do? Both sides have their vision of America and what things are correct.
>The visions on how to get there are different but the methodologies are
>the same.
Barney Frank is pretty smart & I know of no smart winger.
Wingers all seem to think that lies work better.
Hence how we got into these messes.
--
Cliff
Cliff
bin Laden gave up on the rethugs?
--
Cliff
Cliff
When taxes on the wealthy are low we get depressions
& boom/bust cycles.
The working classes pay for it.
--
Cliff
Cliff
Lucky us ... we still have a national economy. It was
pretty close I gather.
Not that the rethugs who ran up the trillions in debts
complained or worried when they did it.
Only the liberals were concerned no matter what the rethugs *said*.
Their actions & inactions speak for themselves.
Wingers lie.
--
Cliff
Cliff
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
You have all those wingers in your killfile?
>
>>>The Democrats, of
>>>course, are more concerned about the corporations getting their voice
>>>back after losing it in McCain-Feingold than they are about the unions
>>>getting theirs back. Ever wonder why?
>>
>> It was the conservative wing of the supreme court IIRC.
>> "corporations getting their voice back"?
>>
>> They never got to do such before do how is it "back"?
>> "We the people" NOT "We the corporations".
>
>Yes, they did. The two laws that were overturned were passed in 1993 and
>2004. One of which was McCain-Feingold which stopped corporations and
>advocacy groups from getting behind (or against) specific candidates
>during the last 60 days of a campaign.
Corporations were never before "persons" in the sense that they now are
per the court.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&source=hp&q=Corporations+persons+court&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn
>> How many votes do they get?
>> Is Exxon in jail? Is bushco?
>
>That has exactly what to do with your concern?
Persons get to vote, right?
>
>>>> Get YOUR facts right now & then at least.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/01/supreme-court-gives-
>corporati
>>>> o.html "Supreme Court Gives .... Unions Power to Spend Unlimited
>>>> Sums on Political
>>>> Messaging"
>>>> " .. the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such groups may now spend
>>>> unlimited
>>>> amounts of money advocating for or against politicians."
>>>>
>>>> What better way to control things than to buy some rethugs?
>>>
>>>You think Dems aren't for sale? Ask Landrieu and Nelson. ;)
>>
>> What better way to control things than to buy some rethugs?
>
>Those are done to both sides of the aisle or do you think Soros is a
>right wing supporter?
Show where he bought anybody.
>>>> Found those "WMDs" yet?
>>>
>>>I'm not looking for them....are you?
>>
>> Ask your buddies.
>
>I don't know of any of my buddies who are looking. How about yours?
--
Cliff
Beam Me Up Scotty
I'm just glad we have Socialism to fall back on when everything
fails..... Obama's Socialism looks like a real fix.
--
Beam Me Up Scotty
--
Beam Me Up Scotty
RD (The Sandman)
news:kssfm51f2plbihmat...@4ax.com:
Which of those do you think supports your contention? Please be
specific.
Corporations have been considered persons for a long time, mon ami. Have
you seen the definition of person in a legal dictionary? Here is one:
Person - A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with
all the right to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties
which it imposes.
The term is, however, more extensive thwt man. It may include artificial
beings, as corporations; People v Com'rs of Taxes, 23 NY 242.....
Source: Black's Law, 3rd Edition - 1933
Or if you would prefer a newer, more recent definition:
Person - In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person) although
by statute term may include labor organizations (your unions),
partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives,
trustees, trustees in bankruptcy or receivers. See National Labor
Relations Act, 2(1), 29 USCA 152; Uniform Partnership Act 2.
Source: Black's Law, 6th Edition - 1991
Interestingly, both of those are from a few years ago. That means that
the definition of person applying to a corporation is not not a new idea
that just came up on January 21st.
>>> How many votes do they get?
>>> Is Exxon in jail? Is bushco?
>>
>>That has exactly what to do with your concern?
>
> Persons get to vote, right?
Some do, some don't.
>>>>> Get YOUR facts right now & then at least.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/01/supreme-court-gives-
>>corporati
>>>>> o.html "Supreme Court Gives .... Unions Power to Spend
>>>>> Unlimited Sums on Political
>>>>> Messaging"
>>>>> " .. the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such groups may now spend
>>>>> unlimited
>>>>> amounts of money advocating for or against politicians."
>>>>>
>>>>> What better way to control things than to buy some rethugs?
>>>>
>>>>You think Dems aren't for sale? Ask Landrieu and Nelson. ;)
>>>
>>> What better way to control things than to buy some rethugs?
>>
>>Those are done to both sides of the aisle or do you think Soros is a
>>right wing supporter?
>
> Show where he bought anybody.
Take a look at moveon.org unless you think it is a table tennis
tournament association.
RD (The Sandman)
news:0bsfm5dncdmkj0vm2...@4ax.com:
Whatever, flips your skirt.
RD (The Sandman)
news:pcsfm5p5uibelv0up...@4ax.com:
Hmmm, methinks that half your brain isn't working. Barny was denying any
problems with either Freddie Mac of Fannie Mae as late as July of 2008.
Everything was simply peachy-keeno. ;)
RD (The Sandman)
eng2.com:
Well, somebody will have to and the private sector is the only one which
generates taxes. Public sector doesn't really pay them.
RD (The Sandman)
news:ilsfm5tovunlqqd51...@4ax.com:
Yep, both left wingers and right wingers.
RD (The Sandman)
news:jisfm5pvoie9os1jr...@4ax.com:
But not the public sector.
HH&C
> On Feb 1, 12:35 am, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > HH&C wrote:
> > > On Jan 29, 4:26 am, Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om>
> > > wrote:
> > >> Unlimited funding for office from unions.
> > >> Buy your rethugs now !!!
> > >> --
> > >> Cliff
>
> > > as much white space as necessary, or even a little more.
>
> > Why don't you tell us how much unions contribute to political campaigns.
> > In total. Then tell us how much America's businesses spend to get
> > politicians they want elected into office. Here's a clue. Business
> > spends tons more on elections than unions do. You know that, right?
>
> > Hawke
>
> Why don't you tell me how many businesses print magazines telling
> their members/employees how to vote.
Little raptor, where did you go?
tankfixer
Sandman)" says...
>
Barny was boffing the "head" of one of them.. what would you expect..