Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Crazy Bernie!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post


    You have never explained why the decision is wrong.
    Doing so would require that you address the 1st Amendment. You haven't. You don't address the first Amendment either because you don't understand it, or because you do and recognize you are wrong.
    Instead, you try to change the subject.
    You are entitled to your feelings about money in politics, but neither the 1st Amendment, nor the Constitution gives the court any authority to do anything about that. If you understood that concept you would have chosen a better argument.
    You argument is addressed to legislation, not the Constitution. Your demand for what amounts to legislation is pretty much an implicit admission that the decision is right. (Meaning you are wrong)

    If you ever said anything about the Court's interpretation of the Constitution, that would have been a better argument, but you didn't. Probably because you don't understand the subject matter you are attempting to lecture about.
    If you ever said anything about the Constitution and I was unable to respond, you might have a point, but you didn't, so you don't.

    Your attempt to change the subject to abortion is laughable. It avoids addressing my point and is an effort to change the subject.
    Also, if you had the barest clue what I was talking about when I've posted on abortion, you wouldn't claim that I had "very strong pro-life views". Attempting to formulate a bad argument based on your ignorance on an unrelated issue isn't a good way to show you are right on this issue.


    You start with a position that somehow the quantity of money one spends equals with the 1A without explaining why this position is correct. I already explained that the logical thing is to see this issue as volume of speech and not freedom of speech. I also provided legal examples (direct contributions) where 1A (even as the SCOTUS wants to define it) does not override concerns of corruption and there is a money spending limitation.

    LOLOL. I have never talked about the Court's interpretation of the Constitution? See previous paragraph which is the tenth time of repeating what I am saying in this thread

    What is laughable was your attempt to argue that the Court will never change position on this subject just as it will never change its position on slavery. It is obvious that you pick and choose the cases where you think a SCOTUS change can come and that was the counterpoint I made. The fact that you did not understand it does not mean that I change any subject. Unless you think that you can start talking about slavery and project you personal feelings regarding the issues where SCOTUS can shift its position and be immune from a retort.
    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

    Comment


    • Originally posted by pamak View Post



      You start with a position that somehow the quantity of money one spends equals with the 1A without explaining why this position is correct. I already explained that the logical thing is to see this issue as volume of speech and not freedom of speech. I also provided legal examples (direct contributions) where 1A (even as the SCOTUS wants to define it) does not override concerns of corruption and there is a money spending limitation.

      LOLOL. I have never talked about the Court's interpretation of the Constitution? See previous paragraph which is the tenth time of repeating what I am saying in this thread

      What is laughable was your attempt to argue that the Court will never change position on this subject just as it will never change its position on slavery. It is obvious that you pick and choose the cases where you think a SCOTUS change can come and that was the counterpoint I made. The fact that you did not understand it does not mean that I change any subject. Unless you think that you can start talking about slavery and project you personal feelings regarding the issues where SCOTUS can shift its position and be immune from a retort.


      It is pretty clear you pay no attention or have no understanding. Maybe both.

      You start with a lie that my position has something to do with the quantity of money spent.
      Since I have never said that it seems you now need to lie in order to continue your trolling.

      The balance of your post reveals that you just don't understand how the court or the constitution works but wish to pretend otherwise.
      I will once again not bother.
      Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

      Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



        It is pretty clear you pay no attention or have no understanding. Maybe both.

        You start with a lie that my position has something to do with the quantity of money spent.
        Since I have never said that it seems you now need to lie in order to continue your trolling.

        The balance of your post reveals that you just don't understand how the court or the constitution works but wish to pretend otherwise.
        I will once again not bother.
        Sorry but you need to stop the crap right here. If you do not say that the quantity of money is not equal to free speech, then do not complain about my 1A understanding when I say that we should have spending limitations.

        And do not bother to inform me that you will not bother anymore, since you have said this numerous times in this thread and you still seem to bother to come back lololol....



        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

        Comment


        • Trump and Sanders are two sides of the same coin. Both work against the best interests of the United States in different ways. Sanders praises Castro's Cuba and Trump sucks up to Putin.
          We are not now that strength which in old days
          Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
          Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
          To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

          Comment


          • Raising government deficit spending, presendential interference in the market economy, draft dodgers, both of them.

            Basically you'll have to choose between one socialist old fart, and another, again
            Lambert of Montaigu - Crusader.

            Bolgios - Mercenary Game.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
              Raising government deficit spending, presendential interference in the market economy, draft dodgers, both of them.

              Basically you'll have to choose between one socialist old fart, and another, again
              If Sanders gets the nomination. He's behind in delegate count now so hopefully he stays there. He had his a$$ handed to him on Tuesday and I think he's in shock over it. His near-immediate reaction to the overwhelming loss was to attack Biden personally, while stating that Biden was his 'friend.' If Sanders wins, it will be the same thing as Trump-a would be autocrat whose ideology is anti-American, just as Trump's is.
              We are not now that strength which in old days
              Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
              Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
              To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Massena View Post
                If Sanders wins, it will be the same thing as Trump-a would be autocrat whose ideology is anti-American, just as Trump's is.
                And yet both are immensely popular with your thoroughly American electorate, any idea how come ?

                Lambert of Montaigu - Crusader.

                Bolgios - Mercenary Game.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

                  And yet both are immensely popular with your thoroughly American electorate, any idea how come ?
                  Trump is popular with his base, but not with the US population as a whole. He has never gone over 50% in any approval rating. And he lost the popular vote in 2016.

                  Sanders is popular with his base, but it appears his popularity waned quite a bit this past Tuesday.
                  We are not now that strength which in old days
                  Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                  Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                  To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Massena View Post

                    Trump is popular with his base, but not with the US population as a whole. He has never gone over 50% in any approval rating. And he lost the popular vote in 2016.

                    Sanders is popular with his base, but it appears his popularity waned quite a bit this past Tuesday.
                    Trumps voter base is anti American also?
                    How many other American citizens are also eliminated from being pro American?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                      Um, please point out the section of the first amendment or the constitution itself that gives the court authority to determine spending limts or to create legislation that addresses money in politics.
                      When you come to the realization that the court has no such authority either under the 1st Amendment or the Constitution, (and never will)perhaps you will begin to understand how much ignorance is involved in your argument against the CU case.
                      But corporations aren't people.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Massena View Post
                        Trump and Sanders are two sides of the same coin. Both work against the best interests of the United States in different ways. Sanders praises Castro's Cuba and Trump sucks up to Putin.
                        Castro's Cuba has ceased to exist .

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Massena View Post

                          Trump is popular with his base, but not with the US population as a whole. He has never gone over 50% in any approval rating. And he lost the popular vote in 2016.

                          Sanders is popular with his base, but it appears his popularity waned quite a bit this past Tuesday.
                          Irrelevant : popular votes do not elect the president : you can become potus with 11 popular votes,which would give you 270 electoral votes .

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
                            But corporations aren't people.
                            Well at least you've memorized the talking point that displays your ignorance.
                            I've even explained the reasoning and all you've got is the ability to repeat talking points.
                            You've run rings around me logically.
                            Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                            Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Massena View Post

                              Trump is popular with his base, but not with the US population as a whole. He has never gone over 50% in any approval rating. And he lost the popular vote in 2016.

                              Sanders is popular with his base, but it appears his popularity waned quite a bit this past Tuesday.
                              Per Rasmussen he was above 50% for 3 weeks in February, after the impeachment ended..

                              https://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub..._index_history
                              Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                              Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
                                But corporations aren't people.
                                But corporations are persons, as ruled by the US Supreme Court in Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad (1886.)
                                I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X