On Jan 21, 8:10*pm, Editor RadioTalkingPoints
wrote:
On Jan 22, 1:02*am, Stevie Nichts wrote:





http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100121/...upreme_court_c...

The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely
to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress,
easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal
campaigns.

By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old
ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money
from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. The
decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to
participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits
imposed by 24 states.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-
Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-
paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.
----
Here's a suggestion for Congress: instead of unconstitutional
restrictions on free speech, how about legislating 100%
transparency for all campaign contributions?

Well, it is about time, a big thumbs up to the Supreme Court, THANK
YOU!

If Congress were doing their job regulating commerce and currency
issues, we would not need unions? *All this money spent on science,
and they can't advise business, but somehow they can mandate things?
Unions are the birth place of political corruption, the embryonic
chamber of destruction when left to their own devices?

Competition solves problems, and now we have choice too? *No more
unions getting a monopoly (even though it with campaign funds, never
really occured to me, Rush has said it before, but the way he
explained it today, it just sunk in there?) *Nice job today Rush, I
think Rush is getting better! *Genius improving Genius? *INCREDIBLE!
Thank you GOD!

You imbecilic moron, why don't you read up on some good old-fashioned
American history and learn why the restrictions were put there in the
first place. In fact, the justices could brush up on history as
well. Seems like people were smarter back in 1907 when they realized
how big business was interfering with the common man than they are now
in 2010. This is going to lead to political shambles, just like
repealing the Glass Steagall Act a decade ago allowed Wall St. to run
amock and get the country in the mess it's in today.

It was never in the contemplation of the Founding Fathers or the
drafters of the post-bellum amendments to endow corporations with the
personalities of human beings.

The foolish five in Scotus just legislated from the bench.

jls wrote:
It was never in the contemplation of the Founding Fathers or the
drafters of the post-bellum amendments to endow corporations with the
personalities of human beings.

The foolish five in Scotus just legislated from the bench.

"Foolish"? Nah, they knew EXACTLY what they were doing. I'd more go with
"sinister" or "corrupt".

On Jan 22, 7:32*am, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
jls wrote:
*It was never in the contemplation of the Founding Fathers or the
drafters of the post-bellum amendments to endow corporations with the
personalities of human beings.

The foolish five in Scotus just legislated from the bench.

"Foolish"? Nah, they knew EXACTLY what they were doing. I'd more go with
"sinister" or "corrupt".

I agree, James. I'll call them the five foul fiends.

On Jan 22, 12:53�pm, jls wrote:
On Jan 22, 7:32�am, Joe from Kokomo wrote:

jls wrote:
�It was never in the contemplation of the Founding Fathers or the
drafters of the post-bellum amendments to endow corporations with the
personalities of human beings.

The foolish five in Scotus just legislated from the bench.

"Foolish"? Nah, they knew EXACTLY what they were doing. I'd more go with
"sinister" or "corrupt".

I agree, James. �I'll call them the five foul fiends.

Of *course* you would. Leftists cannot conceive
that anyone could *possibly* disagree with them
for any reason other than that they're Evil Incarnate.
And then you boobs gape when a Scott Brown
turns your cozy li'l world upside down. It's fun to
watch, actually.

On Jan 22, 3:43*am, jls wrote:
*

The foolish five in Scotus just legislated from the bench.

No, you don't understand:

When conservative judges make rulings intended to benefit their own
political party it's called "being a strict constitutionalist".

When liberals do the same thing, *then* it's called "legislating from
the bench".

Completely different things.

On Jan 22, 3:40*am, wy wrote:

You imbecilic moron,

Yeah, because kindergarten insults do so much
to persuade others to your point of view, right?

why don't you read up on some good old-fashioned
American history and learn why the restrictions were put there in the
first place. *In fact, the justices could brush up on history as
well. *

They did: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the
freedom of speech, ..."

Free political speech is not free if the government can
dictate when and where you exercise it.

in 2010. *This is going to lead to political shambles, just like
repealing the Glass Steagall Act a decade ago allowed Wall St. to run
amock and get the country in the mess it's in today.

So you blame Bill Clinton for the mess the country is in today?
Go on, do go on.

Stevie Nichts wrote:

So you blame Bill Clinton for the mess the country is in today?
Go on, do go on.

Well, to the extent that the Glass-Stegal Act was repealed on his watch,
yes.

However, I would respectfully suggest that you do not overlook the fact
that George W. had EIGHT years to do something about it -- and did NOTHING.

In any event, partisanship has nothing to do with it. Corporatocracy has
EVERYTHING to do with it.

On Jan 22, 7:34*am, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
Stevie Nichts wrote:

So you blame Bill Clinton for the mess the country is in today?
Go on, do go on.

Well, to the extent that the Glass-Stegal Act was repealed on his watch,
yes.

Wikipedia:
"The final bill resolving the differences was passed
in the Senate 90–8 (one not voting) and in the House:
362–57 (15 not voting). The legislation was signed into
law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999."

Sounds rather... bipartisan to me.

However, I would respectfully suggest that you do not overlook the fact
that George W. had EIGHT years to do something about it -- and did NOTHING.

Um, perhaps because he agreed with it?

In any event, partisanship has nothing to do with it. Corporatocracy has
EVERYTHING to do with it.

So your implicit assertion is that Americans are too stupid
to know when they're being fed a line of crap? Though given
that Obama was elected, I just might have to give you that
one.

I'm apalled that you believe that Big Brother should
have, the right to dictate how and when Americans
-- remember, this SCOTUS opinion expressly included
those bastions of individual thought known as 'unions' --
are permitted to express their opinion about political
candidates. Free political speech is not free if
the government can dictate when and where you
exercise it.

Stevie Nichts wrote:


So you blame Bill Clinton for the mess the country is in today?
Go on, do go on.


Johnson, Ford, Carter, Reagan, H.W., Clinton, W. have all been disasters
of one kind of another. Clinton was a DLC Democrat, which is the same
as a Republican.