Supreme court missed chance to correct Citizens United 'mistake': White House

So, in essence! Originally Posted by Sexyeccentric1

Thank you very much for the invite, I will come in whenever I next have the opportunity.

I think I speak on behalf of many of us here when I say to you, EssenceofNonsense: Fuck you.

Corporations are not people...but people make up corporations and corporations are made up of people and people have free speech rights. So liberals think that if a bunch of people own a business then they give up their rights to free speech. So if two or more people own a house (a contractual entity) then they have lost their rights to complain about property taxes. So the liberal idea is to limit free speech as much as possible. Right? That would explain why liberals want the military absentee vote limited but the illegal ballots counted from people out of state. You liberals need to change your names. How about the cry baby party. "WE WANT OUR WAY AND WE WANT IT NOW!"

Corporations are not people...but people make up corporations and corporations are made up of people and people have free speech rights. So liberals think that if a bunch of people own a business then they give up their rights to free speech. So if two or more people own a house (a contractual entity) then they have lost their rights to complain about property taxes. So the liberal idea is to limit free speech as much as possible. Right? That would explain why liberals want the military absentee vote limited but the illegal ballots counted from people out of state. You liberals need to change your names. How about the cry baby party. "WE WANT OUR WAY AND WE WANT IT NOW!" Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The Democrat party isn't the cry baby party. They're the mommy party. Their constituents are the cry babies. The Republican party is the daddy party. We tell people to stop complaining, get a job and take care of yourself; the world doesn't owe you a living.

Unfortunately, the pandering message of the mommy party is easy to sell. Tough love is a little harder to market.

Corporations are not people...but people make up corporations and corporations are made up of people and people have free speech rights. So liberals think that if a bunch of people own a business then they give up their rights to free speech. So if two or more people own a house (a contractual entity) then they have lost their rights to complain about property taxes. So the liberal idea is to limit free speech as much as possible. Right? That would explain why liberals want the military absentee vote limited but the illegal ballots counted from people out of state. You liberals need to change your names. How about the cry baby party. "WE WANT OUR WAY AND WE WANT IT NOW!" Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

If B P wanted to drop a few mil in a super pac for Obama you are cool with that?

Thank you very much for the invite, I will come in whenever I next have the opportunity. Originally Posted by essence

Hahah.. no problem dear! Love it when you comment on the threads. =)

The root of the financial crisis was in social engineering that caused banks to loan money to people that would not normally be eligible. The first was the creation of Fannie Mae followed by Fannie Mac.
I am not sure what that has to do with the rights of people to organize into groups that choose to pool their money for a like minde3d effort.

I swear the phrase "can't see the forest for the trees" comes to mind often when I read these posts. Does the back and forth as to whether or not unions can use money to contribute to candidates or corporations or wealthy etc really matter in the grand scheme?
Does the constitution prevent a person from using there property they way they see fit? No!
Should it be constitutional to force someone to use there property in a way they do not want? No!
This is done by the government all the time and many of us feel it is ok when the money is used in a way we agree but not in a way we do not agree.

If a corporation chooses to support a candidate in an election with a monetary donation no money is taken from someone against there will. Just as no one is forced to donate money or purchase goods or services from that company.

An argument can be made that unions force donations in way of dues in some states than use that money to support politicians. This area gets so ugly it is hard for an outsider to see fact or myth. It is known that dues are required in some states and that is about the extent of the known fact.

What is also true is the Montana law and the law challenged by citizens united are just recent examples in a long history of attempts by a ruling party to silence opposition by passing laws that limit free speech on both federal and state levels. These laws are often passed in response to a crisis, sometimes even with full knowledge that they are not constitutional, in the hopes that they will stay in affect long enough to accomplish a short term goal.

The Alien and Sedition acts are an early example of this. They were passed less than 7 years after the ratification of the Bill of rights by John Adams. They were a large part of what got Jefferson elected.

The real problem is not where the money comes from, it is that, the money buys the politician. ergo politicians are the problem (the forest) The use of term limits at all levels of government will make this problem self correcting. And by term limits I mean one term at any level any position. No more career politicians would go a long way to restoration of the Constitutional Republic that the government was designed to be.

The root of the financial crisis was in social engineering that caused banks to loan money to people that would not normally be eligible. The first was the creation of Fannie Mae followed by Fannie Mac.
I am not sure what that has to do with the rights of people to organize into groups that choose to pool their money for a like minde3d effort. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Another thought on that,is greed let loan officers to sell houses to people a
who could barely afford rent.then they hedged their bet against them and dumped the bad loans on Fred .and Fan.

Term limits are not the answer. Repealing the 17th Amendment is. That was probably the biggest blow to state sovereignty we've seen. The House was designed to represent the people, the Senate was to represent the states. Now we have both houses pandering to the people, promising whatever they can to obtain and retain power. Senators are now beholding to their banking and corporate benefactors, rather than to their state. It is not a good system.

CoG, you are such a hypocrite. First you say the constitution is inviolate, beyond criticism, cast in stone for all eternity. You object when I play with words and call it the fucking constitution. My point in using those words was simply to say that it is not sacred, it is a human artefact, and should not be venerated and worshiped. I was not criticising the constitution itself, I was crticising attitudes towards it.

Now you yourself criticise the constitution, in far stronger terms than my simple playing with you.

So which constitution is it that you hold sacred? Is it the fucking 17th amendment, or the fucking rest of it?

Geez, like arguing with a boiled egg on a plate of oil with a wet fish.

Essence, go back to feeling superior. This isn't your debate. We amend our Constitution from time to time. Sometimes it works, other times it doesn't. Basically, it is the best governing document ever written down. Our Bill of Rights is incomparable. The structure of our government was genius. As with prohibition, this amendment was ill-conceived, and should be repealed.

Our Founders strove to form a MORE Perfect union, not a perfect one, while you in the UK watched your empire crumble under the same shit, different ruler plan. So please stay out of discussions concerning internal American affairs. You lack the understanding and intelligence to form a coherent opinion.

There must be something good on the telly. Maybe a discussion of Kate's pregnancy, or something. You will like that.

Term limits are not the answer. Repealing the 17th Amendment is. That was probably the biggest blow to state sovereignty we've seen. The House was designed to represent the people, the Senate was to represent the states. Now we have both houses pandering to the people, promising whatever they can to obtain and retain power. Senators are now beholding to their banking and corporate benefactors, rather than to their state. It is not a good system. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I have stated this same thing in another post. This alone will not solve the problem. Yes it will improve the states roll in the federal government and may have stopped many of the programs of the new deal and the great society, however, term limits would be equally beneficial. The two together would set in motion events that would drastically limit the size of government over the next decade or two.

Im pro term limits


the longer congressmen/women are in office the more favors they owe special interest groups and people who contribute to their campaign/s .. that magically turns into pork and taxpayers pay for the pork

I do agree that we need serious term limits. I think that should include any elected position even that of the Supreme Court Judges. I also believe that those in elected positions are paid too much money, and are given too much period. The laws need to apply to these elected officials and we need to get rid of some of the laws that protect elected officials,their states from lawsuits and or from being prosecuted for various crimes.