On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 10:18:15 -0500, Frank McCoy <mccoyf@millcomm.com>
wrote:
>"F. Brown" <fredbrown@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Frank McCoy" <mccoyf@millcomm.com> wrote in message
>>news:96fqv850qadfaemhusjstdak0h5kedpb1t@4ax.com...
>>> Justin Thyme <abuse@localhost.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 3 Aug 2013 09:18:55 -0400, "F. Brown" <fredbrown@nowhere.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I follow the Electronic Frontier Foundation and their battles against
>>>>>censorship
>>>>>and restrictions on free speech. Many of the appellate rulings they win
>>>>>contain the
>>>>>phrase, "would have a chilling effect on free speech." Makes me think
>>>>>that
>>>>>the
>>>>>appellate courts understand SCOTUS's position on free speech.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Seems to me that the Bush court has the view that free speach only
>>>>applies to corporations.
>>>
>>> ... And government politicians ... Those belonging to the particular
>>> party in-power at the moment, of course.
>>
>>Which is why the Citizens United decision infuriates them, although they
>>incorrectly blame Citizens for lifting the monetary restrictions imposed
>>by McCain-Feingold. Speech Now Org sued the FEC and won over those
>>restrictions. While Citizens was decided by SCOTUS, Speech Now
>>ended at the DC appellate court, the Justice Dept deciding not to appeal.
>>
>Um ... I might point out that the ruling allowing unlimited monetary
>spending by corporations FAVORS by huge amounts the party and people
>in-power at the moment, and NOT those trying to kick the current SOB's
>out!
>
>It's always FAR easier for incumbents to raise money and support,
>especially by and from corporations than those trying to take their
>places.
>
>Thus your argument fails.
>It was the BUSH administration that had the most to gain (at that
>time) by Citizens United; that most-likely being why the Justice Dept.
>THEN didn't appeal. Those in-power at the time didn't WANT an appeal.
>
>NOW, of course, with Democrats more in-power, the situation and ruling
>backfired on the Republicans.
>
>That tends to happen all the time with rules intended to help keep the
>current SOB's in and the opposing party out. When the out-party
>complains, the in-party just sneers ... until THEY are out, and said
>rules are used against them. THEN they complain, and point-out that
>the new in-party USED to complain, so why do they now support and USE
>those same rules?
>
>Turn-About it seems, is NOT considered "fair play" in politics.
>
>The soapbox is empty.
>NEXT!
On that note, I've always, well since I've noticed, felt it ironic
that the first president presidential term limits might have effected,
the next president after FDR likely to have won a third term, was
Eisenhower, a Republican.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 |
|