2 dems who've read the constitution

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution

    Good point...
    But there is a 'feel good' bill that could be passed...for the demagogues who blathered about the danger of 'foreign money' influence, to the extent the opinion leaves ambiguity, the opinion leaves a clear path for a well drafted law defining a foreign corporation and banning them from contributing.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from wraughn. Show wraughn's posts

    Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution

    who are you going to vote for?  Sony/Att or Exxon/Qwest?  I still think politicians should have to wear jackets with stickers promoting their corporate sponsors.  Just like Nascar drivers.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from lrecliner. Show lrecliner's posts

    Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution

    who are you going to vote for?

    I'm going to vote for Jack Daniels....and his partner Jimmy Beam
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from wraughn. Show wraughn's posts

    Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution

    defining a foreign corporation and banning them from contributing.

    /////

    Haliburton relocated their headquarters to Dubai.  Does that make them a foreign corporation?  Can they still play?
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from sk8ter2008. Show sk8ter2008's posts

    Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution

    Sounds nice but, A.G.H.!!

    (Ain't Gonna Happen)

    It will never pass.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelldog1. Show kelldog1's posts

    Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution



         Brilliant idea Wraughn I can see it now all the Senators wearing fire retardent
    suits with the corporate logos of their sponsors plastered all over them...........it would bring transparency to a whole new level...............ROFLMAO
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from IamYourDaddy. Show IamYourDaddy's posts

    Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution

    More left wing Hypocrisy on display ...

    In boxing, big punchers seek knockouts. In government, the same principle applies: The wealthiest corporations and special interest groups usually pepper politicians with overwhelming amounts of money in hope of influencing the political process.

    Here you'll find total contributions for the 100 biggest givers in federal-level politics since 1989 -- information that exists nowhere else

    Top 10 Heavy Hitters:
    AT&T Inc $44,214,960
    American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $41,941,811
    National Assn of Realtors $35,595,518
    Goldman Sachs $31,437,825
    American Assn for Justice $31,424,029
    Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $31,407,507
    National Education Assn $30,097,067
    Laborers Union $28,978,400
    Service Employees International Union $27,933,232
    Carpenters & Joiners Union $27,767,683














    http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.php

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from wraughn. Show wraughn's posts

    Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution

    I can see it now all the Senators wearing fire retardent
    suits with the corporate logos of their sponsors plastered all over them...........it would bring transparency to a whole new level...............

    /////

    Gotta admit, this was the worst SCOTUS decision ever.  I hope the legislature can do something to control it.  If they can't then the Supreme Court should have to wear those suits too.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from wraughn. Show wraughn's posts

    Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution

    Here you'll find total contributions for the 100 biggest givers in federal-level politics since 1989

    /////

    Just those top 10 add up to about $332 million.  In today's economy, I don't think it's wise to open up the flood gates even more.  It's a waste of at least half of that amount because only one side wins.  It all comes out of our pockets eventually.  Corp.s raise their prices to cover for their donations and unions collect larger dues to cover theirs.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution

    "Gotta admit, this was the worst SCOTUS decision ever"

    If you actually read the decision , and not rely on leftwing bloviating, you may change your mind.
    First of all, it is far from clear which political party benefits from the decision. That is irrelevant to the principles of teh First Amendment.
    Second, the First Amendment has been applied to expressions of exotic dancers, yet leftwingers have no issue wanting to muzzle those with a different political viewpoint. 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution

    "Just those top 10 add up to about $332 million'

    As George Will never tires of pointing out, the amount of money spent on political campaigns is miniscule compared to the amount spent in the US on dog food, or potato chips.

    Union influence of course goes far beyond mere cash contrinutions, their union members are a strike force at the beck and call of Democrats, from phone banks,  to intimidation and  thuggery at demonstrations.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution

    The amazing thing to me is; if you talk to most old time union guys (electricians, plumbers, iron workers etc.) they all vote Republican. I have many union friends and they all vote Republican since Reagan.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mattyhorn. Show Mattyhorn's posts

    Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution

    Is there still anyone out there, even before this decision, who think the corporations don't have ENOUGH influence on the democratic process...??

    Anyone...bueller...??
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from hawkeye01. Show hawkeye01's posts

    Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution

    That sound awfully familiar...
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from shutiggyupdotcom. Show shutiggyupdotcom's posts

    Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution

    Actually, wraughn, the worst SCOTUS decision ever would be Roe vs Wade. Five activist judges made up a "right to privacy", even though the word does not exist anywhere in the Constitution, so that they could impose their personal beliefs on America. The Federal Government has no right to usurpe the right of states to regulate abortion; something which the 10th ammendment clearly grants to them.

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mattyhorn. Show Mattyhorn's posts

    Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution

    Oy, some folks just can't let sleeping fetuses lie, can they...???
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from shutiggyupdotcom. Show shutiggyupdotcom's posts

    Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution

    Actually, Mattyhorn, the abomination that is tens of millions of butchered, unborn children aside, my point is that all freedom-loving Americans should take umbridge with unelected, unaccountable judges imposing their will upon us. If today they can make up one right, tomorrow then can makeup another one - or take one away.

    If the people of California want to vote, or elect legislators who will vote to call sticking a needle into the head of an infant emerging from its mothers womb an "abortion", and fund it with state tax dollars, so be it. It does not mean that it should be foisted on the state of Montana by an over-reaching federal government. That is the very premise of the United States of America.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mattyhorn. Show Mattyhorn's posts

    Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution

    Federal money is used to fund abortions...??  Really...??  You sure about that?

    I support both abortion rights and the death penalty...absolute consistency.

    "Making up rights"...you mean like establishing that corporations have the same rights as individual citizens? Or determining that states don't have the power to discriminate based on race??  Or that women, gays and minorities should have the same equal rights as men, marrieds or whites, respectively???

    Yes, darn those judges.  Darn them all to heck!!

    (I try to love freedom, but she is one fickle b#$!h, lemme tell ya....)

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from wraughn. Show wraughn's posts

    Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution

    Actually, Mattyhorn, the abomination that is tens of millions of butchered, unborn children aside,

    /////

    Have you ever wondered what would have become of those tens of million unwanted children?  After over 30 years of Roe v Wade, most of them would have many children and some grandchildren.  Exponentially, they could inhabit a whole country.  Probably all on welfare.

    ...................................

    my point is that all freedom-loving Americans should take umbridge with unelected, unaccountable judges imposing their will upon us. If today they can make up one right, tomorrow then can makeup another one - or take one away.

    //////

    Agreed.  Now they have granted "personhood" to corporations which are imaginary entities.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from shutiggyupdotcom. Show shutiggyupdotcom's posts

    Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution

    I never said that Federal funds are used to fund abortions (although they have been in the past, and would have been again under Obamacare). - I was merely making an argument of extremes. I apologize for the incorrect assumption of intelligence on your part. I see that you used liberal ploy #1; make up a "fact".

    "Making up rights"...you mean like establishing that corporations have the same rights as individual citizens?"  - What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech," don't you get? They did not make up a right, they restored the right of any group, be it a political party, a chess club or a corporation, to voice their beliefs. Liberal ploy #2, when hoisted on your own judicial petard, scream bloody murder about judicial acitivism. Liberal ploy #3, attack the "evil corporations" - damn them for providing jobs and investment opportunity that keep people off of the public dole!

    "Or determining that states don't have the power to discriminate based on race?? Or that women, gays and minorities should have the same equal rights as men, marrieds or whites, respectively???" - Um, no, that is not judicial activism, that is a court correctly applying the protection of the first clause of the 14th ammendment.
    1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Liberal ploy #4, try to jusify liberal judicial activism because liberals know what is best for us and what to deem fair. Of course liberals never stop to think "what if someday, five judges deem crucifying Christians, or gassing Jews is fair? Not that things like that have ever happened. (Just in case you don't get it, this is the extreme example scenario again.)

    You see the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The founding fathers knew this, and so the Constitution was written to protect the minority from the tyanny of the majority - even when they have the best of intentions. That is something iggyots like you have never, and will never, understand.


     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution

    The worst case in history was Dred Scott: it pushed us that much closer to the worst war in American History.

    Of course, some Conservatives may disagree and argue it was Marbury v. Madison which established the idea of judicial review, a.k.a. "judicial activism".
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from shutiggyupdotcom. Show shutiggyupdotcom's posts

    Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution

    wraughn, I already debunked your "personhood" clause in my last post.

    As to:

    Have you ever wondered what would have become of those tens of million unwanted children?  After over 30 years of Roe v Wade, most of them would have many children and some grandchildren.  Exponentially, they could inhabit a whole country.  Probably all on welfare.

    First, what happened to them before welfare and Roe vs Wade. They were born, entered society, and either worked or lived in misery; their choice. Welfare and on demand abortion are both cause and effect.

    Second, moral issues aside, my point again is, it is not addressed in the Constiution, it automatically defaults to the states.

    Third, lucky for all of us, your mother did not decide that YOU were not worth the trouble of bringing into the world.


     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from sk8ter2008. Show sk8ter2008's posts

    Re: 2 dems who've read the constitution

    Death penalty is justice served for crimes.

    Abortion is death penalty for the innocent.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share