"Frank McCoy" <mccoyf@millcomm.com> wrote in message
news:ac901956siiej0n417ipln698gonepu7cb@4ax.com...
> Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> Of course! ;-}
>
Eisenhower was okay. He saw the worth in a national highway sytem and is the
father of the Interstates.
> --
> _____
> / ' / T
> ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
> (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
|
| 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 |
|