UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (25) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 63022  
Subject: USSC Expands 1st Amendment Rights Date: 1/21/2010 1:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
My liberal friends so often approve of dramatic rulings by the Supreme Court, especially when they expand rights discovered under the first amendment.

I'm sure they are happy today!


<<The decision today, though long forecast, displayed a deep division of opinion on the court about the meaning of the 1st Amendment and freedom of speech. The majority said the Constitution broadly protected discussion and debate on politics, regardless of who was paying for the speech. Roberts said he was not prepared to "embrace a theory of the 1st Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern.">>




http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-court-cor...
Print the post Back To Top
Author: malaoshi Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22862 of 63022
Subject: Re: USSC Expands 1st Amendment Rights Date: 1/21/2010 2:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
Those myopic but wealth minded Republican appointees have just opened up a can of worms they are too partisan to understand in an unbiassed fashion. Yes it will benefit Republicans. That's why they went ahead.

It will open us up to foreign influence in a way never seen before. It has the ability to force small candidates to withdraw from battles against big money. It opens the door to a flood of media campaigning by marketing moguls. The political field will slide towards the rich who inexorably pursue their own agenda which is not necessarily that of the general good.

Big Momma

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22863 of 63022
Subject: Re: USSC Expands 1st Amendment Rights Date: 1/21/2010 3:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Big MOMMA: "The political field will slide towards the rich who inexorably pursue their own agenda which is not necessarily that of the general good."

You mean George Soros, and his half dozen 'front companies', think tanks, Committees for lib think....are finally going to have some competition?

George Soros is the ultra left wing radical funder, with billions of bucks, for the lib dem machine.

Hey, wasn't it the 'elites'.....? the Hollywood types coming out for the lib dems?

Wasn't it the cash flowing from the lib dem coffers?

Wasn't it the union money...SEIU, UAW, NEA, buying votes for their issues withi 'campaign contributions' from their members? forcibly removed from paychecks?.....

And just think..small candidates like Scott Brown might win all over...

Otherwise, we just have the AL GOre type elites..the corrupt John Edwards who just finally came clean on his paternity of a child born to his mistress who accompanied him everywhere on his campaign trips...... the 'elitists' who funded Obama's education...and groomed him the entire way..a candidate with zero positions on anything and an untraceable college record (Occidental College), no friends from high school who would speak...........

Otherwise, we'd have Kennedy legacies forever.......the Kennedy endowed Senate seat.....regardless of how much a boob Caroline is/was.....as well as most of the others....

I"m all for a fair and balanced fight.


t.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: malaoshi Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22864 of 63022
Subject: Re: USSC Expands 1st Amendment Rights Date: 1/21/2010 3:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
"I"m all for a fair and balanced fight." Telegraph.

Goodness, Tele...who could ever believe that after some of your posts?

(Mind if I check to see if H... has frozen over? )


Big Momma.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sykesix Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22865 of 63022
Subject: Re: USSC Expands 1st Amendment Rights Date: 1/21/2010 3:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
In today's decision, the high court struck down that restriction and said the 1st Amendment gives corporations, just like individuals, a right to spend their own money on political ads.

More human than human, that's our motto.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: malaoshi Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22866 of 63022
Subject: Re: USSC Expands 1st Amendment Rights Date: 1/21/2010 3:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Interesting piece of mail...

"Yes on Prop. 8 supporter Meg Whitman just wrote a $20 million check to her campaign to become the next Governor of California and has said she will spend more than $100 million of her own money to buy herself the job. You read that right — $100 million!"


I hear her radio spot all the time. And this is just the beginning of her campaign. One of those poor Republicans entering the race against the evil Democrats.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22867 of 63022
Subject: Re: USSC Expands 1st Amendment Rights Date: 1/21/2010 3:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"And this is just the beginning of her campaign. One of those poor Republicans entering the race against the evil Democrats. "

oh.....poor democrats..

Let's see...Pelosi's hubby has squirreled away about 60 million or so with the largess of contracts and favoritism by wifey Pelosi....they an't 'poor folks'....same for Harry Reid...ain't poor folks...

And those candidates in CA....not poor folks......

Yes, it seems strange..but Bloomberg spent a fortune in NY buying the governorship....

And John Edwards with $600 haircuts?


t.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TMFPMarti Big funky green star, 20000 posts Home Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22868 of 63022
Subject: Re: USSC Expands 1st Amendment Rights Date: 1/21/2010 3:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Big Momma writes:

Those myopic but wealth minded Republican appointees have just opened up a can of worms they are too partisan to understand in an unbiassed fashion. Yes it will benefit Republicans. That's why they went ahead.

It will open us up to foreign influence in a way never seen before.


Don't forget the unions, which will also find new spending power.

I'm pretty much resigned to a bought, or at least rented, government until we go to public financing, and since that would require altering the First Amendment, of which I'm quite fond, I'm not sure it's worth it. McCain-Feingold can certainly be seen as a blow against special interests. It can also be seen as The Incumbents' Protection Act.

You know I love you dearly and plan to take you up on that offer of a proper cuppa one day, but since you're a furriner you lack our native instinct for unfettered speech. I pretty much think the more noxious the speech, the more it should be heard. No doubt this is due in some part to coming from Topeka, home of Fred Phelps and the Westoboro Baptist Church, whose hateful speech has done more positive things for gay people in the political arena than years of lobbying and rational approaches to people.

With the franchise comes responsibility. Know who's paying your politicians' bills and watch how they vote. You retain the ultimate power if you're willing to do your duty.

The partisan angle is interesting. As in so many things in life, be careful what you wish for. You may get it, as the Democrats found out Tuesday. Until 2004 Massachusetts filled US Senate vacancies through appointment by the governor until the next regular Congressional cycle. Scared to death that Mitt Romney would appoint a Republican to fill John Kerry's seat after he was elected President, the Democratic-controlled legislature changed the rules to require a special election. As we say in Kansas, those chickens have come home to roost.

Phil

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: malaoshi Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22869 of 63022
Subject: Re: USSC Expands 1st Amendment Rights Date: 1/21/2010 4:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Always glad to be educated...and you are always entitled to a "cuppa" no matter what your politics, Phil!

Yes for free speech..but money that can effectively drown out other voices bothers me...

Oh well...I can always turn Meg Whitman off when the radio spot comes on.

Best,
M.A.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22870 of 63022
Subject: Re: USSC Expands 1st Amendment Rights Date: 1/21/2010 4:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
<<Those myopic but wealth minded Republican appointees have just opened up a can of worms they are too partisan to understand in an unbiassed fashion. Yes it will benefit Republicans. That's why they went ahead.>>




Oh, my! POLITICS on the Supreme Court? Surely not!


Why, I would have thought my liberal friends would have been delighted with a decision that expands first amendments rights.


I'm totally confused....


If the Supreme Court can find abortion rights and gay rights in the constitution, why would you be surprised that they can find a right for corporations to spend money supporting political campaigns?



Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CountUptoten Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22872 of 63022
Subject: Re: USSC Expands 1st Amendment Rights Date: 1/21/2010 5:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Phil: You know I love you dearly and plan to take you up on that offer of a proper cuppa one day, but since you're a furriner you lack our native instinct for unfettered speech. I pretty much think the more noxious the speech, the more it should be heard. No doubt this is due in some part to coming from Topeka, home of Fred Phelps and the Westoboro Baptist Church, whose hateful speech has done more positive things for gay people in the political arena than years of lobbying and rational approaches to people.

First of all, why is this being discussed here? Why not at PA where this sort of stuff reigns supreme.

Secondly, I disagree with Judge Roberts and the majority that corporations are people and therefore included in the protection of the first ammendment.

Count Uptoten

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22876 of 63022
Subject: Re: USSC Expands 1st Amendment Rights Date: 1/21/2010 5:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<Secondly, I disagree with Judge Roberts and the majority that corporations are people and therefore included in the protection of the first ammendment.

Count Uptoten >>



What! The Supreme Court decided corporation wuz people long ago. If they can find a right to abortion in the constitution, why not corporations, too?

Please explain.



And where in the first amendment does it say that only "people" are entitled to free speech?


Now, if you were saying that there was no first amendment right to display graphic sex to be found in the first amendment, I think you might have a point.

But if the first amendment isn't there to guarantee free speech on political issues during elections, why bother?




Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sykesix Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22880 of 63022
Subject: Re: USSC Expands 1st Amendment Rights Date: 1/21/2010 6:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
What! The Supreme Court decided corporation wuz people long ago. If they can find a right to abortion in the constitution, why not corporations, too?

Please explain.


And where in the first amendment does it say that only "people" are entitled to free speech?


Good point. Following this same exact logic, soon the SC will conclude that corporations will have other rights as well, like the right to vote.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: salaryguru Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22881 of 63022
Subject: Re: USSC Expands 1st Amendment Rights Date: 1/21/2010 7:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Following this same exact logic, soon the SC will conclude that corporations will have other rights as well, like the right to vote.


But will corporations have the right to an abortion?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JustZisGuy Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22882 of 63022
Subject: Re: USSC Expands 1st Amendment Rights Date: 1/21/2010 7:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
... television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern."

I'm glad to see the Court finally recognizing that First Amendment rights apply to non-biological entities such as corporations and unions. Just as you or I could take a small portion of our funds to print flyers or buy a little radio time to promote our political agenda, now AIG, General Motors, or Goldman Sachs can spend a bit of the funds they have on hand to promote their political causes.

Next, we have to get them the vote. Of course, since a corporation may be considerably larger than a biological person, some sort of scaling must be applied. I suggest that we borrow from James Madison, and grant a vote of 3/5ths of all wage slaves controlled by a corporation. Naturally, the currently disenfranchised corporations are now free to campaign for the needed legislation.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22883 of 63022
Subject: Re: USSC Expands 1st Amendment Rights Date: 1/21/2010 7:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Following this same exact logic, soon the SC will conclude that corporations will have other rights as well, like the right to vote.


But will corporations have the right to an abortion?




yes .. because they're not women

Print the post Back To Top
Author: salaryguru Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22884 of 63022
Subject: Re: USSC Expands 1st Amendment Rights Date: 1/21/2010 8:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
yes .. because they're not women

Are you sure? Because working for a corporation was a b#tch.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22885 of 63022
Subject: Re: USSC Expands 1st Amendment Rights Date: 1/21/2010 8:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
yes .. because they're not women

Are you sure? Because working for a corporation was a b#tch.



different thing altogether.

(>,




=
..... the corps will also get the right to same-sex mergers

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JustZisGuy Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22886 of 63022
Subject: Re: USSC Expands 1st Amendment Rights Date: 1/21/2010 8:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
It looks like this will be creating new jobs! Ipso-facto, Amber, 214, and other 'corporate image' production companies expect to get quite a bit of new work from this change.

These are the firms that make nifty ads, something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TcRjxPyhv0

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22887 of 63022
Subject: Re: USSC Expands 1st Amendment Rights Date: 1/21/2010 9:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"If the Supreme Court can find abortion rights and gay rights in the constitution, why would you be surprised that they can find a right for corporations to spend money supporting political campaigns?"


The way tax law is written, a corporation is an entity with the protection of rights.

You can't violate those rights including searching without a search warrant, seizure of assets without a court order, or deciding at some level in the government to 'take over' the assets of a corporation because you don't like it, or you think it has too much money, or has done 'some wrong'.

http://www.capitalism.org/faq/corporation.htm

Above is good web site to explain it......

"The laws underlying corporations are based on objective facts. That is, the basis of a corporation are the rights of the individuals who form it. Rights are not fictional; and neither are the laws that a corporation must abide by. These laws are neither intrinsic in reality, nor are they subjective and a matter of whim: they are objective facts that must be discovered (deduced from the basic principles while inducing the new relevant facts) within a framework of rights.

The laws governing a corporation are simply the standardization and explicit recognition of the application of individual rights by the government, i.e. the laws protecting the right to free speech are not "legal fictions" created by the government, but are laws based on the this right."

- - -

The Supreme Court decision found that corporations have a right to the free expression of first amendment rights. That includes using corporate money to 'speak' on election issues.

The Court found that the existing law violated the corporation's right to use its money to influence legislation that it would be subject to, or to elect candidates that it favored.

- - -

SP...you should celebrate the upholding of rights under the Constitution....

t.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: TMFPMarti Big funky green star, 20000 posts Home Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22891 of 63022
Subject: Re: USSC Expands 1st Amendment Rights Date: 1/21/2010 10:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
First of all, why is this being discussed here? Why not at PA where this sort of stuff reigns supreme.

I figure it's being discussed because more than one person wants to discuss it. PA? I haven't looked at it in years, but the last time I did it was full of people off their meds. Not so here if you ignore the trolls.

Secondly, I disagree with Judge Roberts and the majority that corporations are people and therefore included in the protection of the first ammendment.

I'm reminded of a lengthly conversation with my boss back in my IRS days when he was telling me we couldn't enforce a summons served on a corporation. Even after I walked him through the definitions, which included corporationss in the definition of "person," he couldn't wrap his mind around it. The concept of a corporation being treated by the law as a person has been around, I think, as long as have been corporations.

What I find disconnected is the concept that money equals speech. But that's pretty well settled through case law and, like it or not (I don't) it is what it is until we amend the Constitution.

Phil
Rule Your Retirement Home Fool

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22892 of 63022
Subject: Re: USSC Expands 1st Amendment Rights Date: 1/21/2010 11:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Phil: "What I find disconnected is the concept that money equals speech. But that's pretty well settled through case law and, like it or not (I don't) it is what it is until we amend the Constitution."

No one on the left complained that the NY Times could print all the liberal bashing, slashing, innuedoes....and it is a gigantic media company...... it could get away with political assasination day after day.....

Same for all the other left wing Main Stream Media....MS-LSD, the Commie News Network (CNN), the guys with tingles up their leg...... who both report only good left wing news and only bad right wing news......

They are worth tens of billions....and no one says they have to present 'fair and balanced' reporting...quite the opposite.

MS-LSD, CNN, All Barack Channel (ABC), The National Barack CHannel (NBC), the All Barack CHannel (ABC)...all owned with mega billion dollar corporations who could and DID express their ultra left wing agenda viewpoint..

No one on the left complained...and they enjoyed it..and bashed Fox News..the only right leaning news source.....and are still trying to outlaw Fox news.....

Now, the shoe is on the other foot, with other corporations beside the 'press' and the MSM being able to present their viewpoint...and spending money in the process, obviously......and the libs are screaming bloody murder.

Tough luck for them.

t.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: cerags Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22901 of 63022
Subject: Re: USSC Expands 1st Amendment Rights Date: 1/22/2010 1:41 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
"* * * * *

Good point. Following this same exact logic, soon the SC will conclude that corporations will have other rights as well, like the right to vote."

Hi sykesix,

While I doubt that the Supreme Court of the United States will discover this as part and parcel of the U. S. Constitution, the concept of corporaions having the right to vote is not alien to the law. See section 41-7-317 of the Wyoming Statutes, which provides:

"41-7-317. Election; where held; notice to voters; qualifications of voters; recording vote; proxies.



The commissioners of the district shall fix the hour and place, within the boundaries of or at a place convenient to the landowners within the irrigation district, of each election and preside at the same. It shall be the duty of the commissioners, at least twenty (20) days prior to the date of an election, to mail to each person or corporation entitled to vote thereat, at his or its last known place of residence or business, a notice stating the time, place and purpose of such elections. Every person or corporation owning or entitled by virtue of public land filing to the possession of land situated within and being a part of any commissioner district in which an election for commissioner is being held, and upon which land no assessment for operation, maintenance or repairs is delinquent for more than four (4) years, shall be entitled to cast, for the commissioner to be elected, for the commissioner district wherein such land is situated, one (1) vote for each irrigable acre of such land assessed upon the last annual assessment of said district upon or against which land no assessment for operation, maintenance or repairs is delinquent for more than four (4) years. At the hour and place of such election the commissioners shall call the roll of those entitled to vote, and the number of votes each is entitled to cast. They shall make a record of the qualified voters present, receive all proxies and prescribe the manner of canvassing votes. All proxies shall be in writing and signed by the person or corporation entitled to vote."

It has to do with Irrigation Districts. The concept occassionally can be found in other situations as well. It has been the case in Irrigation Districts in Wyoming since the early part of the last century.

;-)

Cal

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22903 of 63022
Subject: Re: USSC Expands 1st Amendment Rights Date: 1/22/2010 3:22 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<And where in the first amendment does it say that only "people" are entitled to free speech?

Good point. Following this same exact logic, soon the SC will conclude that corporations will have other rights as well, like the right to vote.>>



Heck, Federal courts are deciding that imprisoned felons are entitled to vote, why not corporations too?




Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 22909 of 63022
Subject: Re: USSC Expands 1st Amendment Rights Date: 1/22/2010 8:59 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"<And where in the first amendment does it say that only "people" are entitled to free speech?"


Amazing libs.....they run their lives and everyone else's lives by trying to decide what is 'allowed'....you are 'allowed to go to the bathroom'...you are 'allowed' to paint your door green...you are 'allowed' to own this type of car.

The Constitution is set up to ALLOW the government only certain powers.

The Constitution and Bill of rights outline what RIGHTS citizens have, and then forbid the government from infringing upon them.

The Constitutions does not 'allow'.

It 'prohibits' the government from restricting those rights, including freedom of the press (free speech)...that is the First Amendment......

You do not decide whether something is 'allowed'. You decide whether the government has infringed upon someone's rights..by restricting them.

Simple. Too bad libs don't understand that. Libs want government control of EVERYTHING. If it isn't 'allowed' the government wants to regulate it, charge for it, tax it, and make you pay and pay and pay, and buy favor, to be 'allowed' to have it.

The rest of us know we have those inherent rights......and tell the government to bug off. DOn't bother us over our 50 sq feet of mud puddle they want to call 'wetlands' on our property. Don't tell us taht 2 foot wide creek is a 'government controlled waterway'.....etc.


t.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (25) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement