XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics.liberal   
   XPost: alt.politics.obama   
   From: heaven@dead.net   
      
   On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 22:28:32 -0500, "Eddie Haskell"   
    wrote:   
      
   >   
   >"God's Debris"  wrote in message   
   >news:plopv7lt2cjckalv5qdtrhrar35isungdp@4ax.com...   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >People in business have as much right to free speech as anyone else. Despite   
   >the fact that they have been demonized as the bogyman by your big government   
   >masters. Do you even know what a corporation is? It's usually a small   
   >business consisting of 10 people or so. Why would want to take away their   
   >right to voice their concerns while giving carte blanche to democrat donors   
   >such as public sector unions and trial lawyers?   
   >   
   >Who adds net worth to the country and who subtracts?   
   >   
   >-Eddie Haskell   
   >   
      
   Sorry to be so long in getting back on this.  Not surprisingly you   
   didn't understand a thing I wrote.  I'm not talking about PEOPLE, I'm   
   talking about the fiction that a corporation is a "people".  If the   
   PEOPLE in a business want to use THEIR money to do "speech" that's   
   fine, it's when the people who have CONTROL of a business use the   
   Business's money that the problem arises.  Because the SC decided that   
   a business was = a person they have extended full free speech rights   
   to that corporation. Yet oddly enough, in suits over forcing cig   
   makers to put words on their product that the cig makers DON'T agree   
   with, the same SC says it's ok to violate that corporations alleged   
   free speech right.  Similarly, the SC says it's ok to restrict cig   
   corps and alcohol corps from placing advertising in certain   
   publications.  So for some reason the SC thinks corps are PEOPLE with   
   FULL FREE speech rights when it comes to "speaking" about politics,   
   but doesn't think they are "people" with full free speech rights when   
   it comes to talking about their products.  It's one of the stupidest   
   SC rulings ever made.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)