Reply With Quote
The appointment of all the SC justices preceeded the Tea Party movement, jackass.
you teabaggers cut your own throats and don't even know it....what morons.
The appointment of all the SC justices preceeded the Tea Party movement, jackass.
asshole those SC judges are the teabaggers type of judges......c'mon even a simple mind like yours knows that.
If this SC decision made Keith Olbermann blow a gasket, then I know it was a good one.
Unsurprising. It's much easier to check which way the wind blows than to think for yourself.
This country is doomed.
Is this one of those things where the corps were already getting the kickbacks behind the curtains and now they can just be more open about it?
How's that?
From "teabagger" being deemed an acceptable, intelligent part of the public discourse to determining the validity of a given government action by which popular commentator(s) oppose or support it, this country is doomed.
Not to mention the retroactive labeling of certain public officials. And thinking that cooperate is the same as corporate. Mother er.
Pretty much. But apparently the possibility of that transparency infringing upon the sanc y of our prime time television shows is too much to stomach.
We should all cooperate to take over the politicians.
I'm not so sure transparency is the result. I'm pretty sure disclosure rules went out the window too.
Are you referring to the "this ad paid for by _________" disclaimers? If so, and those did indeed get out then that's not a good thing. But then that would be an issue that goes far beyond just the corporations and unions.
How about the continued affirmation of corporate personhood?
Alluding to that apparently makes you a crank in the eyes of some.
...or a commie.
If you were going to limit the speech of corporations, wouldn't you, by definition, be limiting what the major news networks, radio stations, newspapers, etc. could say?
I'm trying to figure out what's horrible about this ruling?
Because it would be so difficult to define news organizations as part of the "free press."
really? the "i love it because the guy i hate hates it" wow. what if he blew a gasket over children dying on the street? would you rush out and kill a kid?
damn mindless zombie.
you teabaggers cut your own throats and don't even know it....what morons.Teabagger judges allow cooperate takeover of politicians
As if Obama wasn't a beneficiary of corporate contributions, or that he played by the spirit of the campaign finance rules during the last presidential campaign. Oh, it's those "teabaggers" who want to do away with limits on "cooperate" campaign expenditures. The belief that somehow only the GOP receives corporate contributions is one of the more amusing bits of conventional wisdom. Not to mention the bit that union campaign contributions are thought of as good and do anything other than enhance the power of union fiefdoms and enrich their membership.
That's not what the Free Press Clause means.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
