Lying Republicans

[lil mike]

Hmmm...I didn't know the government banned a movie! I could swear it was shown in theatres and on DVD!

Eventually. 

Was this about a movie that wasn't banned or was this about allowing corporations first amendment rights? Cuz your beloved Reason thinks so!

We have me saying CU was about granting corporations a living soul, and we have you saying it was about a movie that was banned but wasn't banned*. I guess Reason and I proved you wrongo again!

Glad to see I edumacated you (again!)

I'm thinking that that you didn't read that full article from Reason.  The article was about the 1st Amendment; one of those troublesome legacies of the constitution that gets in the way of your schemes. I'm sure you just searched for the word corporations.  The entire case was brought to the Supreme Court because the movie was banned.  Not to grant corporations "a living soul."

*Note. Don't pull out the bullshit that Hillary: The Movie was banned by the government because it couldn't be shown on PPV cable! It clearly was a political ad running 90 minutes long and was scheduled immediately (within 30 days) of the Democratic primary and at the time was legally prevented from that by McCain-Feingold. A bipartisan law passed under Bush's regime, tyvm.

I opposed that law, passed under the Bush regime, and welcomed it's demise under the Obama regime.

That is the whole point, and why I suggested you go back and reread the muche arguments about it, because you, and this subject, are a bit boring at this point because of your steadfast ignorance.  You guys seem to think the concept of corporate personhood sprung full from Citizen's United, like Athena popping out of Zeus's forehead,  instead of a being a centuries old legal concept.  Political speech is the purpose of the first amendment; not, as you guys think, for protecting crucifix's in bottles of piss being shown at public facilities.  The fact that you've exposed yourselves as opposing one of the core principles of our republic sure is revealing.

There are some subjects that you just don't have the background to discuss intelligently, and certainly anything having to do with the law is one of them.

[Howey]

Eventually. 


I'm thinking that that you didn't read that full article from Reason.  The article was about the 1st Amendment; one of those troublesome legacies of the constitution that gets in the way of your schemes. I'm you just searched for the word corporations.  The entire case was brought to the Supreme Court because the movie was banned.  Not to grant corporations "a living soul."

I opposed that law, passed under the Bush regime, and welcomed it's demise under the Obama regime.

That is the whole point, and why I suggested you go back and reread the muche arguments about it, because you, and this subject, are a bit boring at this point because of your steadfast ignorance.  You guys seem to think the concept of corporate personhood sprung full from Citizen's United, like Athena popping out of Zeus's forehead,  instead of a being a centuries old legal concept.  Political speech is the purpose of the first amendment; not, as you guys think, for protecting crucifix's in bottles of piss being shown at public facilities.  The fact that you've exposed yourselves as opposing one of the core principles of our republic sure is revealing.

There are some subjects that you just don't have the background to discuss intelligently, and certainly anything having to do with the law is one of them. You're l

Eventually. 


I'm thinking that that you didn't read that full article from Reason.  The article was about the 1st Amendment; one of those troublesome legacies of the constitution that gets in the way of your schemes. I'm sure you just searched for the word corporations.  The entire case was brought to the Supreme Court because the movie was banned.  Not to grant corporations "a living soul."

I opposed that law, passed under the Bush regime, and welcomed it's demise under the Obama regime.

That is the whole point, and why I suggested you go back and reread the muche arguments about it, because you, and this subject, are a bit boring at this point because of your steadfast ignorance.  You guys seem to think the concept of corporate personhood sprung full from Citizen's United, like Athena popping out of Zeus's forehead,  instead of a being a centuries old legal concept.  Political speech is the purpose of the first amendment; not, as you guys think, for protecting crucifix's in bottles of piss being shown at public facilities.  The fact that you've exposed yourselves as opposing one of the core principles of our republic sure is revealing.

There are some subjects that you just don't have the background to discuss intelligently, and certainly anything having to do with the law is one of them. You're l

Wow. Your lilMind's imploded under the weight of silly insults! Just because I was right doesn't mean you've got to go all postal!

tee hee!

[lil mike]

it's his cover.. that way he can feel superior to you and mock you for not liking the 1st amendment.. it's his game.  you should feel sorry for him, I mean, I do..

It's not a game, its the truth, and it applies to you as well.

But yes, I admit I do feel superior.  But why wouldn't I?  I'm defending the Bill of Rights on this board while you and Howey are trying to tear it down.  If I have to feel superior, that's a pretty damn good reason.

[Howey]

It's not a game, its the truth, and it applies to you as well.

But yes, I admit I do feel superior.  But why wouldn't I?  I'm defending the Bill of Rights on this board while you and Howey are trying to tear it down.  If I have to feel superior, that's a pretty damn good reason.

Good. Next time (name silly Republican here) wants to ban a book, movie, or television show (probably about those fags) because it offends his psyche we'll be standing here waiting for your post decrying the failure of free speech!

Superior? That Napoleon Complex is getting to ya, huh?

Maybe I'm right about that "going postal" comment.

[lil mike]

Good. Next time (name silly Republican here) wants to ban a book, movie, or television show (probably about those fags) because it offends his psyche we'll be standing here waiting for your post decrying the failure of free speech!

Superior? That Napoleon Complex is getting to ya, huh?

Maybe I'm right about that "going postal" comment.

Ha!  I await your "challenge!"

[Howey]

Eventually. 

Yes. Eventually. After the clause was lifted. Until then, the "ban" was entirely legit.

There are some subjects that you just don't have the background to discuss intelligently, and certainly anything having to do with the law is one of them.

I'll show you my law degree if you'll show me yours. I guarantee mine's "bigger".

[Howey]

So which is it Mitt?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fP849AIu6o&feature=player_embedded

[lil mike]

Yes. Eventually. After the clause was lifted. Until then, the "ban" was entirely legit.

I'll show you my law degree if you'll show me yours. I guarantee mine's "bigger".

The ban was entirely legal, just not constitutional.  Really... still defending movie bans.  Kagan agreed that the law could ban books to.  Do you think that would have been "legit?"

[Howey]

The entire case was brought to the Supreme Court because the movie was banned.  Not to grant corporations "a living soul."

Another lie...

Of course, there's no need to hid behind a fluffy claim of 1st Amendment Rights or the horror of a book being banned by the socialist commie negro president. All pretenses have now been tossed aside.

The century-old ban on corporate donations to federal political campaigns should be junked as unconstitutional, the Republican National Committee argued in a legal brief filed Tuesday that could lead to new attacks on the GOP as beholden to corporate money.
 
The GOP brief filed with a federal appeals court contends that the ban which became law back in 1908 violates the First Amendment in light of recent Supreme Court rulings, including the 2010 Citizens United decision which allowed unlimited donations to independent-expenditure groups.
 
Republican National Committee Chief Counsel John R. Phillippe, Jr., and RNC lawyer Gary Lawkowski contend that the only legitimate rationale for the corporate donation ban now is to prevent an end-run around individual donation limits and that's not an adequate basis to uphold the ban.
 
"The complete ban both is over-inclusive to this aim and artificially disadvantages political party and candidate committees. It is over-inclusive because it bans all corporate donations without regard to the ability of corporate donors to attribute their donations to individuals. It artificially disadvantages political party and candidate committees by forcing them to rely on aggregating small-dollar donations from individuals while allowing other political actors, such as independent-expenditure-only political action committees, to receive unlimited corporate donations," the GOP lawyers wrote.
 
The brief (which POLITICO has posted here) does not argue against all donation limits for corporations, but as a practical matter a ruling against the current ban would likely lead to such a result.

In short, they (the RNC) want corporations to donate directly, any amount, to candidates.

[lil mike]

Another lie...

Of course, there's no need to hid behind a fluffy claim of 1st Amendment Rights or the horror of a book being banned by the socialist commie negro president. All pretenses have now been tossed aside.

First... revealing!

Secondly, how has "a fluffy claim of 1st Amendment Rights ...have now been tossed aside?"  You post links that are irrelevant to your comment.  Like a certain site you lean on!

Third, you've been throwing around the lie accusation pretty freely and have yet to substantiate it.  So... yawn, and let me know when I can take a post of yours seriously, because they seem to be few and far between.