stop lying.
The differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
stop lying.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
yet you bitched and moaned and complained about it anyway?
what kind of a fucking retard are you?
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Couldn't YOU answer the question? You don't know, do you? Ha, ha! Just admit you were told what your opinion is by some libtard website and you don't have a clue as to why that is your opinion.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Red just got a hard onyou make this too easy, red.
i paid special attention to make sure it was a trailer, not a house.
you're welcome, RIU.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
For Padda. Please read the following paragraph and affirm that you think the government should have the powers described by Malcolm Stewart. These powers, asserted by the government lawyer arguing against Citizen's United, were undone by SCOTUS in the Citizen's United decision.
During the original oral argument, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart (representing the FEC) argued that under Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the government would have the power to ban books if those books contained even one sentence expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate and were published or distributed by a corporation or union.[13] In response to this line of questioning, Stewart further argued that under Austin the government could ban the digital distribution of political books over the Amazon Kindle or prevent a union from hiring a writer to author a political book.
During the original oral argument, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart (representing the FEC) argued that under Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the government would have the power to ban books if those books contained even one sentence expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate and were published or distributed by a corporation or union.[13] In response to this line of questioning, Stewart further argued that under Austin the government could ban the digital distribution of political books over the Amazon Kindle or prevent a union from hiring a writer to author a political book.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Yes, and it's huge, too. Wanna see it?
desert dude
Well-Known Member
I am not lying. I truly don't understand it.
It is not a simple, straight forward thing such as Citizen's United.
Heck, I even went to the Wiki page on Dodd-Frank and I still don't understand it. I am not taking any position on it, neither for nor against.
ew. no.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
I'm with Cheesus on this one. Transparency is more important than the amount.
Which would bother you more?
1) Corporate America trying to buy an election with open and honest funding listing the names and the amount down to the cents.
2) China or another foreign entity trying to buy an election through untraceable donations?
that's what i was thinking but i wanted to be nice.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
You didn't have to say it. You still can't answer his question. You're opposed to it, but don't know why. That's rich!
desert dude
Well-Known Member
yes pada, affirm for desertdud.
Sky, do you think the government should have the power asserted by the government lawyer arguing against Citizen's United?
Red1966
Well-Known Member
I didn't ask YOU. Sure popped in there quick with a reply tho, didn't you? Hmmm.......I think maybe you DO want to see it.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Senate Republicans, including Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio, have already vowed to do everything they can to prevent or blunt the impact of Obama's efforts to normalize relations with Cuba. The pair -- members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- pledged to tie up funds for a planned embassy and to prevent Obama's nominee for ambassador to win confirmation.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
gee, parroting a non-binding oral argument from some douchebag.
do you ever have an original thought in your life?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
the government doesn't have that power, you retard. it was a hypothetical oral argument which would not stand a chance in a real court of law.
you can stop parroting unoriginally already, 0ou spamming propagandist retard.
