Texas judge warns of civil war if Obama is re-elected

[muff daddy]

Now with Citizen United corporations can through limitless amounts of cash at political candidates with out any disclosure of where it came from. They can marginalize the individual voters and buy an election lock stock and barrel. If you think this amount of money is being spent without favors being owed then you are in deed a idiot of colossal proportions.

Money is what runs this country. Those with the gold make the rules.


If you wish to call Justice Stevens, Ginsburg , Breyer, and Sotomayor as opponents of free speech then I consider my self honored to be in their company.

Citizens United works on both sides of the aisle. As I said previously, Obama was against super pacs but now he sure seems to like them.
You claim to be a proponent of due process and Constitutional powers and this case went the length and a decision has been rendered. Democrats pushed this decision over the Hillary movie and got more than they paid for. It is time to accept the ruling and move on.
Dem's first move was to try to write legislation to negate the SCOTUS ruling and now are tossing aside the first amendment and anything else in their path. Dem's will trample on liberty for their agenda.

"Now with Citizen United corporations can through limitless amounts of cash at political candidates with out any disclosure of where it came from."

What you think lobbyists do everyday maybe aside from disclosure?

Bottom line is Dem's are trying to rewrite the first amendment to suit their fancy like I said before.

 

[Ms Tree]

Odds are the republicans are far more in favor of Citizen United than Dems are. Republicans have far more backing from large corporations. Whether or not Obama likes them is unsupported. The fact that there are super-pacs is a result of the law not candidates as I am sure you know a candidate cannot coordinate with a super-pac in any way shape or form (wink-wink nod nod).

Wow, so you contend that the SCOTUS never made a bad decision? Plessy Vs Ferguson was good law? The decision was 5-4. There are four justices who believe Citizen United is bad law. And again you make unsubstantiated allegations but what else is new.

You may want to take up a book on US government. The job of Congress is legislation. They have every right to create law. I think it is even written in the COTUS.

Lobbyist have to register and it all has to be accounted for. It can be traced. Super-pac cannot. I cannot say I am surprised that you are in favor of foreign influence in our political system but then again, if the SCOTUS says it's OK I guess you would go along with anything they say.

The SCOTUS re-wrote the 1[sup]st[/sup]. All the dems are trying to do is put the genie back in the bottle that Scalia, Roberts et all let out.

 

[Ms Tree]

So much for the 1st and the right.

Outcry causes atheist-funded billboards to come down

 

[muff daddy]

Odds are the republicans are far more in favor of Citizen United than Dems are. Republicans have far more backing from large corporations. Whether or not Obama likes them is unsupported. The fact that there are super-pacs is a result of the law not candidates as I am sure you know a candidate cannot coordinate with a super-pac in any way shape or form (wink-wink nod nod).

Wow, so you contend that the SCOTUS never made a bad decision? Plessy Vs Ferguson was good law? The decision was 5-4. There are four justices who believe Citizen United is bad law. And again you make unsubstantiated allegations but what else is new.

You may want to take up a book on US government. The job of Congress is legislation. They have every right to create law. I think it is even written in the COTUS.

Lobbyist have to register and it all has to be accounted for. It can be traced. Super-pac cannot. I cannot say I am surprised that you are in favor of foreign influence in our political system but then again, if the SCOTUS says it's OK I guess you would go along with anything they say.

The SCOTUS re-wrote the 1[sup]st[/sup]. All the dems are trying to do is put the genie back in the bottle that Scalia, Roberts et all let out.

Looks like it's the law of the land now.
SCOTUS only clarified the first amendment.
Dem's want to rewrite it. Isn't the first time Dem's wanted to step on our rights and you know it.

Don't worry, Dems aren't about to give up the new toy they have in super pac's.
You talk of foreign cash in our elections?
Never heard of Norm Hsu and Hillary?
Nor Charlie Trie, Johnny Chung and Bill Clinton?

Lobbyist does the same thing however you try to paint it.

So much for the 1st and the right.

Outcry causes atheist-funded billboards to come down

Galatians 6:7-8 Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.

 

[Ms Tree]

Yes it is the law of the land. So is Roe v Wade but I am sure you have no issue with the Fed and states making end runs around the law. And if you do not have an issue with that then please explain Montana. I guess you will paint Montana as anti-first amendment as well?


Your lack of understanding on how the legal process works is pathetic, Try picking up a book or doing some actual research on an issue before you vomit up some BS argument. At the very least there are legitimate arguments against United but you do not even acknowledge that. Typical of narrow minded fringe political drones. My chit does not stink but yours does.


The COTUS is based on checks and balances. The document guarantees the right to protest ones government if people think they were wronged. Congress has passed laws that were in clear violation of the COTUS and the COTUS has endorsed laws that were clearly in violation of the COTUS as well, Ferguson being one of them most glaring examples that comes to mind.


And the issue that you seem to be blind about even though you proved the difference between lobbyist and Super-Pacs is that you know the names of the people involved in the Hilary Pac, When that occurs today you will not know the name behind the money because Super-Pacs do not need to divulge the source of the money.


Tree 1:1 What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[SparrowHawk]

With some politicians there is but one kind of free speech. The speech that parrots their views. Dems don't have a lock on that

 

[SparrowHawk]

Yes it is the law of the land. So is Roe v Wade but I am sure you have no issue with the Fed and states making end runs around the law. And if you do not have an issue with that then please explain Montana. I guess you will paint Montana as anti-first amendment as well?


Your lack of understanding on how the legal process works is pathetic, Try picking up a book or doing some actual research on an issue before you vomit up some BS argument. At the very least there are legitimate arguments against United but you do not even acknowledge that. Typical of narrow minded fringe political drones. My chit does not stink but yours does.


The COTUS is based on checks and balances. The document guarantees the right to protest ones government if people think they were wronged. Congress has passed laws that were in clear violation of the COTUS and the COTUS has endorsed laws that were clearly in violation of the COTUS as well, Ferguson being one of them most glaring examples that comes to mind.


And the issue that you seem to be blind about even though you proved the difference between lobbyist and Super-Pacs is that you know the names of the people involved in the Hilary Pac, When that occurs today you will not know the name behind the money because Super-Pacs do not need to divulge the source of the money.


Tree 1:1 What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

The problem today with all of those "Checks & Balances" is that the checks come from Wall Street and the Central Banks and end up in the bank balances of politicians running for reelection.

 

[Ms Tree]

And that is what Muff does not seem to be able to grasp. Citizen U made that much easier for money to subvert and silence the voters will. Money has more influence now.

 

[muff daddy]

Yes it is the law of the land. So is Roe v Wade but I am sure you have no issue with the Fed and states making end runs around the law. And if you do not have an issue with that then please explain Montana. I guess you will paint Montana as anti-first amendment as well?


Your lack of understanding on how the legal process works is pathetic, Try picking up a book or doing some actual research on an issue before you vomit up some BS argument. At the very least there are legitimate arguments against United but you do not even acknowledge that. Typical of narrow minded fringe political drones. My chit does not stink but yours does.


The COTUS is based on checks and balances. The document guarantees the right to protest ones government if people think they were wronged. Congress has passed laws that were in clear violation of the COTUS and the COTUS has endorsed laws that were clearly in violation of the COTUS as well, Ferguson being one of them most glaring examples that comes to mind.


And the issue that you seem to be blind about even though you proved the difference between lobbyist and Super-Pacs is that you know the names of the people involved in the Hilary Pac, When that occurs today you will not know the name behind the money because Super-Pacs do not need to divulge the source of the money.


Tree 1:1 What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Nonetheless, Dem's still want to tramp on our rights and liberty's.

All this aside, what makes your judge unfit and unstable anymore or less than you?

I guess you showed me.

Oh the humanities.

 

[muff daddy]

And that is what Muff does not seem to be able to grasp. Citizen U made that much easier for money to subvert and silence the voters will. Money has more influence now.

No it doesn't, same as before but legal now.

 

[Knotbuyinit]

And that is what Muff does not seem to be able to grasp. Citizen U made that much easier for money to subvert and silence the voters will. Money has more influence now.

Liberal political activist types tend to grossly overestimate how much non-political types care about Citizens United.

 

[Knotbuyinit]

According to Gallup, in June 2009, before Citizens United (CU) 44% of Democrats (the group in which outrage regarding CU is clearly greatest) expressed a great deal of confidence in the Supreme Court. In July 2010, after CU, this went up to 48%. In June 2012, after two years of supposed outrage over CU, the number went all the way down to.... 44%.

These numbers do not seem to depict a public, even a Democratic public, seething with outrage over Citizens United. By contrast, Democrats' approval of the Court plunged by 28 percentage points just after Bush v. Gore, and didn't fully recover until Obama became president.

http://www.aei.org/f...62919650849.pdf

 

[Ms Tree]

No it doesn't, same as before but legal now.

Like trying to explain green to a blind man. Never mind.

 

[Ms Tree]

According to Gallup, in June 2009, before Citizens United (CU) 44% of Democrats (the group in which outrage regarding CU is clearly greatest) expressed a great deal of confidence in the Supreme Court. In July 2010, after CU, this went up to 48%. In June 2012, after two years of supposed outrage over CU, the number went all the way down to.... 44%.

These numbers do not seem to depict a public, even a Democratic public, seething with outrage over Citizens United. By contrast, Democrats' approval of the Court plunged by 28 percentage points just after Bush v. Gore, and didn't fully recover until Obama became president.

http://www.aei.org/f...62919650849.pdf

As if even a small portion of the voters have even a basic understanding of how our government works.

 

[muff daddy]

Like trying to explain green to a blind man. Never mind.

Money has no more influence now than before. The money gets to where its needed in our perfect political system one way or another. Either by breaking the rules and law or within legal boundaries. Now there is an open legal door for both parties where before it was under the table, in the back alley or something of that sort. Just think SCOTUS may have ended illegal campaign contributions. I'm anxious to see what the DNC view will be after they've analyzed their election returns per super pac input. I bet they don't get as excited as they were after the ruling.
Besides, in all your scholarly knowledge you should be aware most corporations contribute to both parties.