Supreme Court puts corporations ahead of citizens

Nathan Bedford Forrest

unread,

Jan 23, 2010, 7:39:37 PM1/23/10

to

Or are Tea Baggers just a phony grass roots front for the very same
corporations that want to take away government of the people and replace
it with government by Big Brother?

None4U

unread,

Jan 23, 2010, 7:40:39 PM1/23/10

to

"Nathan Bedford Forrest" <NBF@H�TMAIL.COM> wrote in message
news:hjg4rh$o0$1...@news.eternal-september.org...

> Or are Tea Baggers just a phony grass roots front for the very same
> corporations that want to take away government of the people and replace
> it with government by Big Brother?

Wheres your outrage. HIllary Clinton caused this mess and set us back 100
years.

Activist Court Overturns Century-Old Campaign Finance Law
Posted at 2:11 PM by Chase Foster

In a 5-4 decision issued this morning, the U.S. Supreme Court radically
altered campaign finance law, obliterating the long-held distinction between
spending by individuals and spending by corporations.

The case, Citizens United v. FEC, dealt with a challenge to an FEC ruling
barring the airing of an anti-Hillary Clinton documentary during the 2008
primary elections. The lower court had said the McCain-Feingold law of 2002
prohibited the planned broadcasts because they would be aired during the 30
day period before a presidential primary and were paid for with corporate
money.

The Supreme Court was faced with determining whether the lower court's
ruling was Constitutional. They were originally expected to rule narrowly on
the particular merits and circumstances of this unusual case, but instead,
the Court issued a sweeping and expansive ruling that undermines 100 years
of precedent and law.

Here's how the Campaign Legal Center describes it:

Today's decision from the Supreme Court is an extreme example of judicial
overreach that arbitrarily overturns decades of precedent and undercuts the
powers of the legislative branch. What the Supreme Court majority did today
was empower corporations to use their enormous wealth and urge the election
or defeat of federal candidates, and in doing so, buy even more power over
the legislative process and government decision making. As a result of this
decision, for profit corporations and industries will be able to threaten
members of Congress with negative ads if they vote against corporate
interests, and to spend tens of millions on campaign ads to "punish" those
who do not knuckle under to their lobbying threats.

Experts predict that this ruling will not only have implications for federal
campaign finance law, but will require a change in North Carolina law as
well. They also predict that this could be one more step in the court's
march toward a place where traditional campaign finance regulations are
rendered meaningless. In four other cases since Roberts became Chief
Justice, the Court has circumscribed campaign finance law, and there is no
reason to think they will stop now.

Given this context, the only viable reform option is to create a
comprehensive system of public campaign financing that encourages small
donor giving and allows candidates to run special interest free. The small
donor incentives and competitive funding stream present in most Voter-Owned,
public financing systems would give candidates the capacity to compete with
outside corporate money in a post-Citizens United fundraising world. And
since public campaign financing is voluntary, it should not face any
Constitutional troubles, even from an activist right-wing Court.

If one good thing can come out of today's decision, it would be a new
realization at the federal, state, and local levels, that fundamental
campaign reform is needed to safeguard our democracy. By enacting public
campaign financing systems, our leaders can create a way out of the campaign
money chase and set our system of government up to withstand the worst of
the damage that today's ruling will bring.

Nathan Bedford Forrest

unread,

Jan 23, 2010, 7:47:29 PM1/23/10

to

None4U wrote:
> "Nathan Bedford Forrest" <NBF@H®TMAIL.COM> wrote in message
> news:hjg4rh$o0$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Or are Tea Baggers just a phony grass roots front for the very same
>> corporations that want to take away government of the people and replace
>> it with government by Big Brother?
>
>
>
> Wheres your outrage. HIllary Clinton caused this mess and set us back 100
> years.
>

Thanks fer letting us all see what an unmitigated fucking idiot you are
to try to spin off a conservative Supreme Court decision as something
"Hillary caused". I'm sure that somewhere in the annals of psychiatric
literature there is a name fer yer condition, something that espouses
the concepts of delusion and paranoia.

Oh yeah... Delusional Paranoia.

None4U

unread,

Jan 23, 2010, 7:53:59 PM1/23/10

to

"Nathan Bedford Forrest" <NBF@H�TMAIL.COM> wrote in message

news:hjg5a9$3bb$1...@news.eternal-september.org...

Oh yeah... Delusional Paranoia.

Right..... Keep deleting the facts. And caling people names.

Hilary did everything. She started the case. First fuckup. Second fuck up
is arguing about how the movie was paid for thinking it wouldnt matter.
Third fuckup. Is thinking they wouldnt apply the same laws to Corporations
she was bitching about. Uh gee, we didnt think that would happen , Duh....

Now you know what. You asshats need money now. You got to get it from the
people your fucking over. Good luck with dat..,

Too bad yer too fucking stupid to realize that, but thanks fer letting
us all see it.

Your too stupid to accept facts. So you keep deleting them..

So here they are again.

Nathan Bedford Forrest

unread,

Jan 23, 2010, 8:20:52 PM1/23/10

to

None4U wrote:
> "Nathan Bedford Forrest" <NBF@H®TMAIL.COM> wrote in message
> news:hjg5a9$3bb$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> None4U wrote:
>> "Nathan Bedford Forrest" <NBF@H®TMAIL.COM> wrote in message
>> news:hjg4rh$o0$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Or are Tea Baggers just a phony grass roots front for the very same
>>> corporations that want to take away government of the people and replace
>>> it with government by Big Brother?
>>
>>
>> Wheres your outrage. HIllary Clinton caused this mess and set us back 100
>> years.
>>
>
> Thanks fer letting us all see what an unmitigated fucking idiot you are
> to try to spin off a conservative Supreme Court decision as something
> "Hillary caused". I'm sure that somewhere in the annals of psychiatric
> literature there is a name fer yer condition, something that espouses
> the concepts of delusion and paranoia.
>
> Oh yeah... Delusional Paranoia.
>
>
> Right..... Keep deleting the facts. And caling people names.
>
> Hilary did everything.

Yeppers... an obvious case of obsessive delusional paranoia.

Never mind that on January 21st, in Reality Land, the US Supreme Court
ruled 5-4 in favor of allowing corporations the right to use unlimited
amounts of money to promote political campaigns.

In Reality Land, Hillary Clinton did not do this.

The US Supreme Court did this.

See the difference?

Hillary Clinton, nah

Supreme Court, yah

f. barnes

unread,

Jan 23, 2010, 8:44:32 PM1/23/10

to

Liberals are always fighting change, unless it's change pre-approved
of by liberals.

Spartakus

unread,

Jan 23, 2010, 8:53:47 PM1/23/10

to

"None4U" <nos...@nospam.none> wrote:
> "Nathan Bedford Forrest" <NBF@H®TMAIL.COM> wrote...

>
> > Or are Tea Baggers just a phony grass roots front for the very same
> > corporations that want to take away government of the people and replace
> > it with government by Big Brother?

> Wheres your outrage. HIllary Clinton caused this mess and set us back 100
> years.

Where is your outrage that Dred Scott caused a mess over slavery and
guaranteed a civil war over the issue?

Spartakus

unread,

Jan 23, 2010, 8:56:47 PM1/23/10

to

So you're all on board for having YOUR voice drowned out by corporate
money?

The next time you feel like sending a sternly worded letter to your
congress critter, forget about it. Just fedex a wad of cash instead.
But be sure to incorporate yourself - otherwise, it's a bribe.

Christopher Helms

unread,

Jan 23, 2010, 9:33:08 PM1/23/10

to

The wishes of "The People" haven't been much more than a more or less
irrelevant technicality for the last ten years. Now that the First
Amendment, along with the electoral and legislative processes have
been placed on the same economic footing as a cattle auction, soon a
group of gigantic corporations will probably create some sort of a
Trust or Central Committee which will decide for all practical
purposes who is worthy of getting enough funding to win elections and
who needs to have about 75% of their oxygen supply cut off. They will
be running the government for their own benefit before long and it
won't matter a hill of beans what anybody else thinks because nobody
anywhere will be able to outspend them. "Unapproved" candidates won't
be able to raise much money when everybody knows they will be outspent
by however much is required to make sure they lose and the Approved
candidate wins. Representatives who represent specific districts are
about to go the way of local electric companies and local TV stations
unless this juggernaut is stopped in a fucking hurry. The teabaggers
are thrilled with this ruling. I suspect that they don't realize that
their voice is about to be drowned out, too, along with everybody
else's, once and for all. You thought the Bush administration
shoveling trillions in free money at Wall Street, the auto industry,
the defense industry and any popsicle stand declaring itself a "bank"
was disgusting? You ain't seen nothin' yet. Just wait until they start
voting themselves money and nobody anywhere is able to stop it. Just
wait until Wal-Mart, Exxon Mobil, Halliburton and Aetna attach
themselves to the revenue streams of states and municipalities the way
that thing attached itself to the guys face in the first "Alien"
movie. There is now nothing to stop them.

Doug Bashford

unread,

Jan 23, 2010, 10:03:56 PM1/23/10

to

in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, On Sat, 23 Jan 2010, None4U said
about:
Re: Supreme Court puts corporations ahead of citizens - Where's
the Tea Bag outrage?

>
> "Nathan Bedford Forrest" wrote...

> > Or are Tea Baggers just a phony grass roots front for the very same
> > corporations that want to take away government of the people and replace
> > it with government by Big Brother?
>
>
>
> Wheres your outrage. HIllary Clinton caused this mess and set us back 100
> years.

Good point, but check it out, Bill Clinton was part of that.

>
> Activist Court Overturns Century-Old Campaign Finance Law
> Posted at 2:11 PM by Chase Foster
>
> In a 5-4 decision issued this morning, the U.S. Supreme Court radically
> altered campaign finance law, obliterating the long-held distinction between
> spending by individuals and spending by corporations.
>
> The case, Citizens United v. FEC, dealt with a challenge to an FEC ruling
> barring the airing of an anti-Hillary Clinton documentary during the 2008
> primary elections. The lower court had said the McCain-Feingold law of 2002
> prohibited the planned broadcasts because they would be aired during the 30
> day period before a presidential primary and were paid for with corporate
> money.

....

> Today's decision from the Supreme Court is an extreme example of judicial
> overreach that arbitrarily overturns decades of precedent and undercuts the
> powers of the legislative branch. What the Supreme Court majority did today
> was empower corporations to use their enormous wealth and urge the election
> or defeat of federal candidates, and in doing so, buy even more power over
> the legislative process and government decision making. As a result of this
> decision, for profit corporations and industries will be able to threaten
> members of Congress with negative ads if they vote against corporate
> interests, and to spend tens of millions on campaign ads to "punish" those
> who do not knuckle under to their lobbying threats.

Supreme Court OKs unlimited corporate spending on elections
Los Angeles Times -

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-campaign-finance22-2010jan22,0,850920.story?track=rss

Reporting from Washington - Overturning a century-old
restriction, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that corporations
could spend as much as they wanted to sway voters in federal
elections.

In a landmark 5-4 decision, the court's conservative bloc said
that corporations had the same right to free speech as
individuals, and for that reason the government could not stop
corporations from spending to help their favored candidates.

Until Thursday, corporations and unions were barred from spending
their treasury funds on broadcast ads, campaign workers or
billboards that urge the election or defeat of a federal
candidate.

The restriction dates to 1907, when Congress prohibited
corporations, railroads and national banks from putting money
into federal races. After World War II, Congress extended the ban
to labor unions. More recently, the McCain-Feingold Act in 2002
added an extra limit on corporate and union-funded broadcast ads
in the month before an election. Such ads were prohibited if they
even mentioned a candidate running for office.

Thursday's decision swept away all of these restrictions.

The dissenters joined a 90-page dissenting opinion written by
Justice John Paul Stevens, who was appointed by President Ford, a
Republican. Stevens, who will turn 90 in April, spoke in a
halting voice as he read part of his dissent in the courtroom
Thursday.

He called the decision "a radical change in the law." He
predicted that the ruling would "cripple the ability of ordinary
citizens, Congress and the states to adopt even limited measures
to protect against corporate domination of the electoral
process."

"Under today's decision, multinational corporations controlled by
foreign governments" would have the same rights as Americans to
spend money to tilt U.S. elections, Stevens said.
-------------------

Like China? Or Saudi Arabia? Yipee.
Talk about legislating from the Bench!

The banksters and Wall Street, who can toss around
hundreds of billions, EVERY YEAR, EVERY ELECTION,
FOREVER, can now do what ever they want to Main Street.
...as if corporations were too powerless before.

Bye bye "We the people."

"When fascism comes to America, it will not be a drooling monster
wearing jack boots and swastikas, but wearing Nike sneakers and
a smiley tee-shirt. Smiley-smiley!" -- George Carlin

- Political Economics:

plutocracy plu�toc�ra�cy
1. Government by the wealthy.
2. A wealthy class that controls a government.
3. A government or state in which the wealthy rule.

- "Fascism should more properly be called
- corporatism, since it is the merger
- of state and corporate power."
-- - Benito Mussolini, father of fascism.

A merger? So? How might that merger happen today in America?
Well in this case, what's the difference between merger and the
government's ongoing deregulation of the bankers & Wall Street?
Not much that I can see. Voila!

- Socialism: The government/people own the corporations.
- Fascism: The corporations/government own the people.

The investment bankers, Goldman Sachs Group, Inc is a person, not in fact, not in flesh, not in any tangible form, but in law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

To their everlasting credit, this is not what the Founding Fathers intended.
For 100 years after the U.S.A. was born, our founders, -- recognizing the super powers and
extra privileges and unnatural advantages that government was granting to corporations,
restricted their purpose to serving the common good. Every four years, their charters came up
for renewal, and corporations had to prove that indeed this is what they were accomplishing.
Our founding fathers rightfully feared the power of these otherwise everlasting super
creations. Even so, in hind sight, their worst blunder was in underestimating the corporate
power and influence brought by the future.

In 1886, under increasing corporate power, a questionable court ruling changed all that, and
the public good has been increasingly compromised until it was finally displaced altogether. It
looks like tipping point has been reached, there is no going back. The game has changed.

Today, with the courts defining money as speech and corporations as people, the First Amendment
protects the right of corporations-as-persons to control political campaigns and to employ
lobbyists, who then specify and redeem the incurred obligations. Legalized bribery in the name of Free Speech! Corporations can now toss around tens of billions of dollars in every election, forever to get just what they want. ...Next, the right to bear arms and organize "militias?" Why not? These are God-like powers. "If power corrupts, then...."

This how low America has sunk.
Democracy has been transformed into a covert plutocracy. Our new rulers have deemed that
public policy no longer be crafted to serve the American people at large. It is shaped instead
to maintain, protect, and create wealth and opportunities for corporate profit.

This is no Evil conspiracy of hidden back room plotters.
This is just simple unregulated economic forces obeying simple economic principles.

It's now one dollar, one vote. Representative government is dead.
- Fascism: The corporations/government own the people.

Economic quiz:
With just simple unregulated economic forces obeying simple economic principles, guess what's next.

Jim Austin

unread,

Jan 23, 2010, 10:04:03 PM1/23/10

to

This guy has it backward. He yearns for a Big Brother to tell us who
may speak and what views may be heard, ultimately to control our
thoughts.

Obie Won Scumbag

unread,

Jan 23, 2010, 11:12:42 PM1/23/10

to

And Marxist labor unions must surely reloice at this decision, eh
cupcake?

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 03:03:56 GMT, pla...@work.edu (Doug Bashford)
wrote:

Nathan Bedford Forrest

unread,

Jan 23, 2010, 11:33:47 PM1/23/10

to

Unions are busted.

Corporations are flush with socialist bailout cash

Open Wide Sarah

unread,

Jan 23, 2010, 11:52:28 PM1/23/10

to

--
............../锟斤拷/)............(\锟絗\
............/....//..............\\....\
.........../....//................\\....\
...../锟斤拷/..../锟斤拷\.........../锟絗\....\锟絗\
.././.../..../..../.|_......_|.\....\....\...\.\
(..(....(....(..../.)..)......(..(.\....)....)....)
.\................\/.../....\...\/................/
..\................. /........\................../
....\..............(............)............../
Big Brother is watching you:
http://tinyurl.com/ydmpmkr
"f. barnes" <fre...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
news:f60e32ec-a9ae-4d54...@y23g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

Liberals are always fighting change, unless it's change pre-approved
of by liberals.

=======================

There won't be any "liberals" for you to bitch and cry to Limbaugh about.
There won't be anything we've made America into. No roads, no fire
departments, no cops, no schools, no laws, no streetlights, no tv or radio,
nothing. You'll have to chop down trees and live in a lean-to, trap rats
for dinner, walk thousands of miles and probably die in the first year since
all hospitals will be closed without government money from "liberals".

Prisons will close, so buy a bow and arrow. You'll be back in the caveman
days.
Big Brother Cheney will be eating steak.

Spartakus

unread,

Jan 24, 2010, 12:11:43 AM1/24/10

to

jack@yomomma. (Obie Won Scumbag) wrote:

> And Marxist labor unions must surely reloice at this decision, eh
> cupcake?

How many labor unions are owned by the Chinese? Cupcake?

thunder

unread,

Jan 24, 2010, 12:27:16 AM1/24/10

to

If I were a Conservative, I think I would be squawking louder. Unions
give almost exclusively to the Democrats. Corporations hedge their bets
and give to both sides. However, they give heaviest to incumbents. Need
I remind you who now controls both Houses and the Presidency? The only
people who shouldn't be concerned with the recent High Court decision,
are incumbents.

Message has been deleted

Obie Won Scumbag

unread,

Jan 24, 2010, 8:23:01 AM1/24/10

to

Yes comrade.

We must do away with the corporations, aloneg with the goods,
services, and jobs they provide.

You grow the potatoes and I'll grow the cabbage and we'll share
according to need.

VIVA Marxism!

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:33:47 -0800, Nathan Bedford Forrest
<NBF@H�TMAIL.COM> wrote:

>Obie Won Scumbag wrote:
>> And Marxist labor unions must surely reloice at this decision, eh
>> cupcake?

>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20

>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 03:03:56 GMT, pla...@work.edu (Doug Bashford)
>> wrote:

>>=20

>>>
>>> in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, On Sat, 23 Jan 2010, None4U said

>>> about:=20

>>> Re: Supreme Court puts corporations ahead of citizens - Where's

>>> the Tea Bag outrage?=20

>>>
>>>
>>>> "Nathan Bedford Forrest" wrote...
>>>>> Or are Tea Baggers just a phony grass roots front for the very same

>>>>> corporations that want to take away government of the people and rep=

>lace
>>>>> it with government by Big Brother?
>>>>
>>>>

>>>> Wheres your outrage. HIllary Clinton caused this mess and set us back=
> 100=20
>>>> years.
>>> Good point, but check it out, Bill Clinton was part of that.=20

>>>
>>>> Activist Court Overturns Century-Old Campaign Finance Law
>>>> Posted at 2:11 PM by Chase Foster
>>>>

>>>> In a 5-4 decision issued this morning, the U.S. Supreme Court radical=
>ly
>>>> altered campaign finance law, obliterating the long-held distinction =

>between
>>>> spending by individuals and spending by corporations.
>>>>

>>>> The case, Citizens United v. FEC, dealt with a challenge to an FEC ru=
>ling
>>>> barring the airing of an anti-Hillary Clinton documentary during the =
>2008
>>>> primary elections. The lower court had said the McCain-Feingold law o=
>f 2002
>>>> prohibited the planned broadcasts because they would be aired during =
>the 30
>>>> day period before a presidential primary and were paid for with corpo=
>rate
>>>> money.
>>> ....
>>>
>>>> Today's decision from the Supreme Court is an extreme example of ju=
>dicial
>>>> overreach that arbitrarily overturns decades of precedent and undercu=
>ts the
>>>> powers of the legislative branch. What the Supreme Court majority did=
> today
>>>> was empower corporations to use their enormous wealth and urge the el=
>ection
>>>> or defeat of federal candidates, and in doing so, buy even more power=
> over
>>>> the legislative process and government decision making. As a result o=
>f this
>>>> decision, for profit corporations and industries will be able to thre=

>aten
>>>> members of Congress with negative ads if they vote against corporate

>>>> interests, and to spend tens of millions on campaign ads to "punish" =

>those
>>>> who do not knuckle under to their lobbying threats.
>>>
>>> Supreme Court OKs unlimited corporate spending on elections

>>> Los Angeles Times -=20
>>>
>>> http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-campaign-finance22-=
>2010jan22,0,850920.story?track=3Drss

>>> Like China? Or Saudi Arabia? Yipee.=20

>>> Talk about legislating from the Bench!
>>>
>>> The banksters and Wall Street, who can toss around

>>> hundreds of billions, EVERY YEAR, EVERY ELECTION,=20

>>> FOREVER, can now do what ever they want to Main Street.
>>> ...as if corporations were too powerless before.
>>>
>>> Bye bye "We the people."
>>>
>>>

>>> "When fascism comes to America, it will not be a drooling monster=20
>>> wearing jack boots and swastikas, but wearing Nike sneakers and=20

>>> a smiley tee-shirt. Smiley-smiley!" -- George Carlin
>>>

>>> - Political Economics:=20
>>>
>>> plutocracy plu=B7toc=B7ra=B7cy =20

>>> 1. Government by the wealthy.
>>> 2. A wealthy class that controls a government.
>>> 3. A government or state in which the wealthy rule.
>>>
>>>
>>> - "Fascism should more properly be called
>>> - corporatism, since it is the merger
>>> - of state and corporate power."
>>> -- - Benito Mussolini, father of fascism.
>>>
>>> A merger? So? How might that merger happen today in America?

>>> Well in this case, what's the difference between merger and the=20
>>> government's ongoing deregulation of the bankers & Wall Street?=20
>>> Not much that I can see. Voila!=20

>>>
>>> - Socialism: The government/people own the corporations.
>>> - Fascism: The corporations/government own the people.
>>>

>>> The investment bankers, Goldman Sachs Group, Inc is a person, not in f=
>act, not in flesh, not in any tangible form, but in law. http://en.wikipe=
>dia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
>>>
>>> To their everlasting credit, this is not what the Founding Fathers int=
>ended.
>>> For 100 years after the U.S.A. was born, our founders, -- recognizing =
>the super powers and=20
>>> extra privileges and unnatural advantages that government was granting=
> to corporations,=20
>>> restricted their purpose to serving the common good. Every four years=
>, their charters came up=20
>>> for renewal, and corporations had to prove that indeed this is what th=
>ey were accomplishing. =20
>>> Our founding fathers rightfully feared the power of these otherwise ev=
>erlasting super=20
>>> creations. Even so, in hind sight, their worst blunder was in underes=
>timating the corporate=20
>>> power and influence brought by the future.=20
>>>
>>> In 1886, under increasing corporate power, a questionable court ruling=
> changed all that, and=20
>>> the public good has been increasingly compromised until it was finally=
> displaced altogether. It=20
>>> looks like tipping point has been reached, there is no going back. The=
> game has changed.=20
>>>
>>> Today, with the courts defining money as speech and corporations as pe=
>ople, the First Amendment=20
>>> protects the right of corporations-as-persons to control political cam=
>paigns and to employ=20
>>> lobbyists, who then specify and redeem the incurred obligations. Lega=
>lized bribery in the name of Free Speech! Corporations can now toss aroun=
>d tens of billions of dollars in every election, forever to get just what=
> they want. ...Next, the right to bear arms and organize "militias?" Why=

> not? These are God-like powers. "If power corrupts, then...."
>>>

>>> This how low America has sunk. =20
>>> Democracy has been transformed into a covert plutocracy. Our new ruler=
>s have deemed that=20
>>> public policy no longer be crafted to serve the American people at lar=
>ge. It is shaped instead=20
>>> to maintain, protect, and create wealth and opportunities for corporat=
>e profit.=20

>>>
>>> This is no Evil conspiracy of hidden back room plotters.

>>> This is just simple unregulated economic forces obeying simple economi=
>c principles.=20
>>>
>>> It's now one dollar, one vote. Representative government is dead.=20

>>> - Fascism: The corporations/government own the people.
>>>

>>> Economic quiz:=20
>>> With just simple unregulated economic forces obeying simple economic p=
>rinciples, guess what's next.=20
>>=20

Sueki Tartridge

unread,

Jan 24, 2010, 10:13:35 AM1/24/10

to

Whaddaya squawking about?? It's what us Tea party types call
"HOPE&CHANGE". Deal with it. Btw,better lay in a good supply of Prozac
before the november rush. Gonna be a tough year for you fringe kook
anarchist progressives !!

Sueki Tartridge

unread,

Jan 24, 2010, 10:16:27 AM1/24/10

to

BUT WAIT !! I thought you pinheads were beating your chests and
bragging about the that fat,greasy,mexxkin taco bending beaner Obama
put on the supreme court recently and how she was gonna,"Save the
world from EVILLLLL conservatives"? WTF happened??

Sueki Tartridge

unread,

Jan 24, 2010, 10:19:33 AM1/24/10

to

On Jan 23, 10:33 pm, Nathan Bedford Forrest <NBF@H®TMAIL.COM> wrote:
> Obie Won Scumbag wrote:
> > And Marxist labor unions must surely reloice at this decision, eh
> > cupcake?
>

> > On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 03:03:56 GMT, play...@work.edu (Doug Bashford)

> >>http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-campaign-finance22...

> >> The investment bankers, Goldman Sachs Group, Inc is a person, not in fact, not in flesh, not in any tangible form, but in law.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

> Corporations are flush with socialist bailout cash- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

And SEIU isn't flush with Soros's $BILLIONS and $MILLIONS from Obama's
"Porkulous" slush fund?? Whaddya' on drugs??

Sueki Tartridge

unread,

Jan 24, 2010, 10:20:45 AM1/24/10

to

What good does it do to "squawk"? Obama,Reid,Pelosi said "Sit down and
shut-up,we won" !!

Nathan Bedford Forrest

unread,

Jan 24, 2010, 2:24:19 PM1/24/10

to

Obie Won Scumbag wrote:
> Yes comrade.
>
> We must do away with the corporations, aloneg with the goods,
> services, and jobs they provide.

Who said anything like that?

Oh... yer a delusional braindead wingnut, that explains it.

Do you believe that corporations should be allowed to buy public office,
because that's pretty much what this ruling allows them to do. I thought
the GOP was supposed to stand up for the rights of the individual, at
least that's been the GOP message for the last decade or two. You mean
to tell me that it was all a lie and that the GOP really stands up for
the rights of corporations to corrupt the political process in America
by using their vast wealth to buy elections?

Who'da thunk it?

liberal

unread,

Jan 24, 2010, 2:29:31 PM1/24/10

to

On Jan 23, 12:42 pm, Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
> Nathan Bedford Forrest <NBF@H®TMAIL.COM> wrote:
>

> They'll be outraged LATER ... after this ruling totally
> screws-over you socialist/pinko shitheads.

Asshole, without liberals from the very beginning of the nation the US
would look like a giant plantation.

Name one good policy offered by conservatives.

Had a conservative won the US presidency in 1932, Germany would have
gained an ally.

liberal

unread,

Jan 24, 2010, 2:32:14 PM1/24/10

to

Ahhh, the melodious song of decency and the American spirit as offered
by the true conservative.

Obie Won Scumbagoni

unread,

Jan 24, 2010, 3:01:12 PM1/24/10

to

You mean as opposed to unions buying public office?

Listen, moonbat, big business and liberals have always gotten along.

It's the small businessman that Obammy and his thugs are destroying.

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 11:24:19 -0800, Nathan Bedford Forrest
<NBF@H�TMAIL.COM> wrote:

>Obie Won Scumbag wrote:
>> Yes comrade.
>>=20

>> We must do away with the corporations, aloneg with the goods,
>> services, and jobs they provide.
>
>
>Who said anything like that?
>
>Oh... yer a delusional braindead wingnut, that explains it.
>
>Do you believe that corporations should be allowed to buy public office,
>because that's pretty much what this ruling allows them to do. I thought
>the GOP was supposed to stand up for the rights of the individual, at
>least that's been the GOP message for the last decade or two. You mean
>to tell me that it was all a lie and that the GOP really stands up for
>the rights of corporations to corrupt the political process in America
>by using their vast wealth to buy elections?
>
>Who'da thunk it?
>
>

>>=20

>> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:33:47 -0800, Nathan Bedford Forrest

>> <NBF@H=AETMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>=20

>>> Obie Won Scumbag wrote:
>>>> And Marxist labor unions must surely reloice at this decision, eh
>>>> cupcake?

>>>> =3D20
>>>> =3D20
>>>> =3D20
>>>> =3D20
>>>> =3D20
>>>> =3D20
>>>> =3D20
>>>> =3D20
>>>> =3D20
>>>> =3D20
>>>> =3D20
>>>> =3D20
>>>> =3D20

>>>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 03:03:56 GMT, pla...@work.edu (Doug Bashford)
>>>> wrote:

>>>> =3D20

>>>>> in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, On Sat, 23 Jan 2010, None4U said

>>>>> about:=3D20

>>>>> Re: Supreme Court puts corporations ahead of citizens - Where's

>>>>> the Tea Bag outrage?=3D20
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Nathan Bedford Forrest" wrote...
>>>>>>> Or are Tea Baggers just a phony grass roots front for the very sam=
>e
>>>>>>> corporations that want to take away government of the people and r=
>ep=3D

>>> lace
>>>>>>> it with government by Big Brother?
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Wheres your outrage. HIllary Clinton caused this mess and set us ba=
>ck=3D
>>> 100=3D20
>>>>>> years.
>>>>> Good point, but check it out, Bill Clinton was part of that.=3D20

>>>>>
>>>>>> Activist Court Overturns Century-Old Campaign Finance Law
>>>>>> Posted at 2:11 PM by Chase Foster
>>>>>>

>>>>>> In a 5-4 decision issued this morning, the U.S. Supreme Court radic=
>al=3D
>>> ly
>>>>>> altered campaign finance law, obliterating the long-held distinctio=
>n =3D

>>> between
>>>>>> spending by individuals and spending by corporations.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> The case, Citizens United v. FEC, dealt with a challenge to an FEC =
>ru=3D
>>> ling
>>>>>> barring the airing of an anti-Hillary Clinton documentary during th=
>e =3D
>>> 2008
>>>>>> primary elections. The lower court had said the McCain-Feingold law=
> o=3D
>>> f 2002
>>>>>> prohibited the planned broadcasts because they would be aired durin=
>g =3D
>>> the 30
>>>>>> day period before a presidential primary and were paid for with cor=
>po=3D
>>> rate
>>>>>> money.
>>>>> ....
>>>>>
>>>>>> Today's decision from the Supreme Court is an extreme example of =
>ju=3D
>>> dicial
>>>>>> overreach that arbitrarily overturns decades of precedent and under=
>cu=3D
>>> ts the
>>>>>> powers of the legislative branch. What the Supreme Court majority d=
>id=3D
>>> today
>>>>>> was empower corporations to use their enormous wealth and urge the =
>el=3D
>>> ection
>>>>>> or defeat of federal candidates, and in doing so, buy even more pow=
>er=3D
>>> over
>>>>>> the legislative process and government decision making. As a result=
> o=3D
>>> f this
>>>>>> decision, for profit corporations and industries will be able to th=
>re=3D
>>> aten
>>>>>> members of Congress with negative ads if they vote against corporat=

>e
>>>>>> interests, and to spend tens of millions on campaign ads to "punish=

>" =3D

>>> those
>>>>>> who do not knuckle under to their lobbying threats.
>>>>> Supreme Court OKs unlimited corporate spending on elections

>>>>> Los Angeles Times -=3D20
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-campaign-finance2=
>2-=3D
>>> 2010jan22,0,850920.story?track=3D3Drss

>>>>> Like China? Or Saudi Arabia? Yipee.=3D20

>>>>> Talk about legislating from the Bench!
>>>>>
>>>>> The banksters and Wall Street, who can toss around

>>>>> hundreds of billions, EVERY YEAR, EVERY ELECTION,=3D20

>>>>> FOREVER, can now do what ever they want to Main Street.
>>>>> ...as if corporations were too powerless before.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bye bye "We the people."
>>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>> "When fascism comes to America, it will not be a drooling monster=3D=
>20
>>>>> wearing jack boots and swastikas, but wearing Nike sneakers and=3D20=

>
>>>>> a smiley tee-shirt. Smiley-smiley!" -- George Carlin
>>>>>

>>>>> - Political Economics:=3D20
>>>>>
>>>>> plutocracy plu=3DB7toc=3DB7ra=3DB7cy =3D20

>>>>> 1. Government by the wealthy.
>>>>> 2. A wealthy class that controls a government.
>>>>> 3. A government or state in which the wealthy rule.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - "Fascism should more properly be called
>>>>> - corporatism, since it is the merger
>>>>> - of state and corporate power."
>>>>> -- - Benito Mussolini, father of fascism.
>>>>>
>>>>> A merger? So? How might that merger happen today in America?

>>>>> Well in this case, what's the difference between merger and the=3D20=
>
>>>>> government's ongoing deregulation of the bankers & Wall Street?=3D20=
>
>>>>> Not much that I can see. Voila!=3D20

>>>>>
>>>>> - Socialism: The government/people own the corporations.
>>>>> - Fascism: The corporations/government own the people.
>>>>>

>>>>> The investment bankers, Goldman Sachs Group, Inc is a person, not in=
> f=3D
>>> act, not in flesh, not in any tangible form, but in law. http://en.wik=
>ipe=3D
>>> dia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
>>>>> To their everlasting credit, this is not what the Founding Fathers i=
>nt=3D
>>> ended.
>>>>> For 100 years after the U.S.A. was born, our founders, -- recognizin=
>g =3D
>>> the super powers and=3D20
>>>>> extra privileges and unnatural advantages that government was granti=
>ng=3D
>>> to corporations,=3D20
>>>>> restricted their purpose to serving the common good. Every four yea=
>rs=3D
>>> , their charters came up=3D20
>>>>> for renewal, and corporations had to prove that indeed this is what =
>th=3D
>>> ey were accomplishing. =3D20
>>>>> Our founding fathers rightfully feared the power of these otherwise =
>ev=3D
>>> erlasting super=3D20
>>>>> creations. Even so, in hind sight, their worst blunder was in under=
>es=3D
>>> timating the corporate=3D20
>>>>> power and influence brought by the future.=3D20
>>>>>
>>>>> In 1886, under increasing corporate power, a questionable court ruli=
>ng=3D
>>> changed all that, and=3D20
>>>>> the public good has been increasingly compromised until it was final=
>ly=3D
>>> displaced altogether. It=3D20
>>>>> looks like tipping point has been reached, there is no going back. T=
>he=3D
>>> game has changed.=3D20
>>>>> Today, with the courts defining money as speech and corporations as =
>pe=3D
>>> ople, the First Amendment=3D20
>>>>> protects the right of corporations-as-persons to control political c=
>am=3D
>>> paigns and to employ=3D20
>>>>> lobbyists, who then specify and redeem the incurred obligations. Le=
>ga=3D
>>> lized bribery in the name of Free Speech! Corporations can now toss ar=
>oun=3D
>>> d tens of billions of dollars in every election, forever to get just w=
>hat=3D
>>> they want. ...Next, the right to bear arms and organize "militias?" W=
>hy=3D

>>> not? These are God-like powers. "If power corrupts, then...."

>>>>> This how low America has sunk. =3D20
>>>>> Democracy has been transformed into a covert plutocracy. Our new rul=
>er=3D
>>> s have deemed that=3D20
>>>>> public policy no longer be crafted to serve the American people at l=
>ar=3D
>>> ge. It is shaped instead=3D20
>>>>> to maintain, protect, and create wealth and opportunities for corpor=
>at=3D
>>> e profit.=3D20

>>>>> This is no Evil conspiracy of hidden back room plotters.

>>>>> This is just simple unregulated economic forces obeying simple econo=
>mi=3D
>>> c principles.=3D20
>>>>> It's now one dollar, one vote. Representative government is dead.=3D=

>20
>>>>> - Fascism: The corporations/government own the people.
>>>>>

>>>>> Economic quiz:=3D20
>>>>> With just simple unregulated economic forces obeying simple economic=
> p=3D
>>> rinciples, guess what's next.=3D20
>>>> =3D20

>>> Unions are busted.
>>>
>>> Corporations are flush with socialist bailout cash

>>=20
>

Obie Won Scumbagoni

unread,

Jan 24, 2010, 3:14:53 PM1/24/10

to

Do you believe that moguls like Oprah, Gates, Soros, the guy who owns
Google, the Hollywood elite are conservative just because they
prospered under capitalism? ya ever hear all the "green" message
bullshit put out by GE/NBC? Limousone libs like $$$$$$$$ too. And
now they can deliver all the propaganda they want.

Did ya know that most of the Fortune 500 filed amici curiae in favor
of giving blacks 20 extra points on college admissions' tests in the
Gratz vs. Bollinger SCOTUS case?

Do dat sound like conservatism to you? Eh?

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 11:24:19 -0800, Nathan Bedford Forrest
<NBF@H�TMAIL.COM> wrote:

>Obie Won Scumbag wrote:
>> Yes comrade.
>>=20

>> We must do away with the corporations, aloneg with the goods,
>> services, and jobs they provide.
>
>
>Who said anything like that?
>
>Oh... yer a delusional braindead wingnut, that explains it.
>
>Do you believe that corporations should be allowed to buy public office,
>because that's pretty much what this ruling allows them to do. I thought
>the GOP was supposed to stand up for the rights of the individual, at
>least that's been the GOP message for the last decade or two. You mean
>to tell me that it was all a lie and that the GOP really stands up for
>the rights of corporations to corrupt the political process in America
>by using their vast wealth to buy elections?
>
>Who'da thunk it?
>
>

>>=20

>> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:33:47 -0800, Nathan Bedford Forrest

>> <NBF@H=AETMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>=20

>>> Obie Won Scumbag wrote:
>>>> And Marxist labor unions must surely reloice at this decision, eh
>>>> cupcake?

>>>> =3D20
>>>> =3D20
>>>> =3D20
>>>> =3D20
>>>> =3D20
>>>> =3D20
>>>> =3D20
>>>> =3D20
>>>> =3D20
>>>> =3D20
>>>> =3D20
>>>> =3D20
>>>> =3D20

>>>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 03:03:56 GMT, pla...@work.edu (Doug Bashford)
>>>> wrote:

>>>> =3D20

>>>>> in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, On Sat, 23 Jan 2010, None4U said

>>>>> about:=3D20

>>>>> Re: Supreme Court puts corporations ahead of citizens - Where's

>>>>> the Tea Bag outrage?=3D20
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Nathan Bedford Forrest" wrote...
>>>>>>> Or are Tea Baggers just a phony grass roots front for the very sam=
>e
>>>>>>> corporations that want to take away government of the people and r=
>ep=3D

>>> lace
>>>>>>> it with government by Big Brother?
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Wheres your outrage. HIllary Clinton caused this mess and set us ba=
>ck=3D
>>> 100=3D20
>>>>>> years.
>>>>> Good point, but check it out, Bill Clinton was part of that.=3D20

>>>>>
>>>>>> Activist Court Overturns Century-Old Campaign Finance Law
>>>>>> Posted at 2:11 PM by Chase Foster
>>>>>>

>>>>>> In a 5-4 decision issued this morning, the U.S. Supreme Court radic=
>al=3D
>>> ly
>>>>>> altered campaign finance law, obliterating the long-held distinctio=
>n =3D

>>> between
>>>>>> spending by individuals and spending by corporations.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> The case, Citizens United v. FEC, dealt with a challenge to an FEC =
>ru=3D
>>> ling
>>>>>> barring the airing of an anti-Hillary Clinton documentary during th=
>e =3D
>>> 2008
>>>>>> primary elections. The lower court had said the McCain-Feingold law=
> o=3D
>>> f 2002
>>>>>> prohibited the planned broadcasts because they would be aired durin=
>g =3D
>>> the 30
>>>>>> day period before a presidential primary and were paid for with cor=
>po=3D
>>> rate
>>>>>> money.
>>>>> ....
>>>>>
>>>>>> Today's decision from the Supreme Court is an extreme example of =
>ju=3D
>>> dicial
>>>>>> overreach that arbitrarily overturns decades of precedent and under=
>cu=3D
>>> ts the
>>>>>> powers of the legislative branch. What the Supreme Court majority d=
>id=3D
>>> today
>>>>>> was empower corporations to use their enormous wealth and urge the =
>el=3D
>>> ection
>>>>>> or defeat of federal candidates, and in doing so, buy even more pow=
>er=3D
>>> over
>>>>>> the legislative process and government decision making. As a result=
> o=3D
>>> f this
>>>>>> decision, for profit corporations and industries will be able to th=
>re=3D
>>> aten
>>>>>> members of Congress with negative ads if they vote against corporat=

>e
>>>>>> interests, and to spend tens of millions on campaign ads to "punish=

>" =3D

>>> those
>>>>>> who do not knuckle under to their lobbying threats.
>>>>> Supreme Court OKs unlimited corporate spending on elections

>>>>> Los Angeles Times -=3D20
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-campaign-finance2=
>2-=3D
>>> 2010jan22,0,850920.story?track=3D3Drss
>>>>>