XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics.liberal   
   XPost: alt.politics.obama   
   From: heaven@dead.net   
      
   On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 21:55:27 -0500, "Eddie Haskell"   
    wrote:   
      
   >   
   >"Bob Eld"  wrote in message   
   >news:jtg4as$kaf$1@dont-email.me...   
   >> On 7/9/2012 5:54 PM, Eddie Haskell wrote:   
   >>> "anon"  wrote in message news:5pcgmk.cfp.19.1@news.alt.net...   
   >>>> "Columnist Andrew McCarthy gives us what probably is the most important   
   >>>> question regarding the upcoming presidential election.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> "Mitt Romney is the nominee, so I will enthusiastically support his   
   >>>> candidacy." For my friends who have hesitation on that score, I'd just   
   >>>> ask   
   >>>> you to keep four things in mind:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> * 1.. Justice Scalia just turned 78*   
   >>>>   
   >>>> * 2.. Justice Kennedy will turn 78 later this year*   
   >>>>   
   >>>> * 3.. Justice Breyer will be 76 in August*   
   >>>>   
   >>>> * 4.. Justice Ginsburg turned 81 about 3 weeks ago.*   
   >>>>   
   >>>> We wish them all well, of course, but the brute fact is that whoever we   
   >>>> elect as President in November is almost certainly going to choose at   
   >>>> least one, and maybe more new members of the Supreme Court -- in   
   >>>> addition   
   >>>> to hundreds of other life-tenured Federal Judges. . . all of whom will   
   >>>> be   
   >>>> making momentous decisions about our lives for decades to come.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It matters whether the guy making those calls is Mitt Romney or Barack   
   >>>> Obama. . . NOTHING IS AS IMPORTANT!   
   >>>>   
   >>>> So for anybody who is thinking of NOT voting because your favorite   
   >>>> didn't   
   >>>> get nominated, or writing in a candidate who can't win............*   
   >>>>   
   >>>> *Imagine This:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: "ERIC HOLDER"   
   >>>   
   >>> Good point. If the left ever takes over the SC it's over once and for all   
   >>> for the rule of law and the constitution. We just think it's bad now..   
   >>>   
   >>> -Eddie Haskell   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Yeah right..tell us Hasskell just where in the Constitution does it say or   
   >> even suggest that spending money is a form of protected speech?   
   >   
   >The first amendment where free speech is guaranteed. Speech costs money, and   
   >limits on that money by government and how it should be directed constitutes   
   >a limit on said speech.   
   >   
   >I'm just glad that I'm not saying that on a college campus or you'd no doubt   
   >be shouting me down.   
   >   
   >> If you knew anything you'd know the founders were very concerned with   
   >> accumulating power and guarded against it.   
   >   
   >Which is why they'd be horrified at today's democrats, as you are everything   
   >they warned of concerning the corrupting influence of big government, both   
   >on politicians, and the populace.   
   >   
   >-Eddie Haskell   
   >   
   >   
      
      
   I think you've gone of the track.  The problem isn't really the   
   Money=Speech thing, it's the "Corporation=A real person" thing.  A   
   corporation is not a person no matter how much the SC thinks it is.  A   
   Corp can not be convicted of murder and given life in prison, a REAL   
   person can.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)