"Frank McCoy" <mccoyf@millcomm.com> wrote in message
news:se4v09pscsrdedo7dbmncjmtc3rvvg7iai@4ax.com...
> "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!
>
> --
> _____
> / ' / T
> ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
> (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
Wasn't it Janet Reno who persecuted a world famous naturalist photographer
over decades of innocent pictures of nudist children? This goes way beyond
the Bush administration. There's a decades long war on free speech by people
who absolutely lose it over the idea of children involved in sex. This is
what the Frank McCoy case is about. My half brother had a real bad breakup
weith a girlfriend and was crying. Our 10 year olds (at the time) niece got
ahold of him and gave him a hand job. He didn't ask for it but let it
happen. Evidently, she had some experience at it. He made the mistake of
telling his sister who was also going through bad break up. Next thing you
know he's worst than that Castro dude in Ohio (although this happened nearly
20 years ago). The opportunist DA went down hard. Our parents couldn't
afford much in the way of attorneys. My hal brother was advised to take a
plea deal for 10 years and he'd be able to get on with his life when he got
out. So they brought him the plea papers. THe DA had him down for forcible
vaginal rapr on a child under 12. My half brother refuse to sign it because
he didn't do that. So the DA told him he's fix that but if he didn't sign
offg and they went to trial he'd see to it my half brother would do at least
20 years. The DA changed the plea deal to forceable anal rape of a child
under 12. Myu half brother's attorney advised him to take the deal. So he
did. While he was in all these idotic sex offender registry laws got passed.
They don't do a fucking thing to protect children. They're nothing but
unconstitutional ex post facto laws.
The fact is: children are having sex. Another fact: Nothing FRank McCoy did
harmed any children. Boils down to there are people who are evil who cannot
deal with anything having to do with sex and children. They're insane and
they have the power to do these things so they do them.
So we have other cases like a pregnant 12 year old girl and her 12 year old
boyfriend charged for having sex with a child 12 or under for having sex
with each other and both facxing life on the sex offender registries and the
case of the 16 year old and 14 year old girls who were having a passionate
sexial affair. As soon as the 16 year old turned 17 the 14 year old's
vindictive parents had yer arrested for lewd and lasivious acts on a child
under 16.
What crap. It hurts people. It destroys families. But there are a few chinks
in the wall showing.
|
| 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 |
|