"Oglethorpe" <antikerry@go.com> wrote:
>
>"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.
Naturally Eisenhower would see worth in the National Highway System
(Freeway System mainly, in the West).
He was our top general; and the system was built for the possibility
of war ... To be able to get stuff needed from one part of the country
to the other in a hurry; and not just by railroad.
The really USEFUL benefits of such a system didn't really become
apparent until we HAD them for a while.
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
|
| 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 |
|