Harry Dresden
Adamantium Member
what advertisement ever said that pepsi was the drink of poor people?.....i never seen it....
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights
- Thread starter Geaux4it
- Start date
OK I think you're a rambling psychotic. Get help. Get meds. Get lost.Nothing has been replaced of what has been stolen. Truth is still denied by the courts. It has been not even a year gone by since their latest theft against us of stealing our land. Now that is all is left and the court denied the basic rights to our land patent and the county awarded our land to neighbors through erroneous Quit Claim deeds and the court threw us out because we could not hire or find an attorney after the county filed to even make a response. OH' tis perfectly okay for a government agency to go along with fraudulent documents that is really not fraud by their standards. That is no surprise because the court will insure justice will not prevail. Same thing as when my equipment was sabotage and the bank committed fraud and then stole all of Rod equipment and raided our house and shop. The court gave the lawsuit I had against the manufacturer to the bank and the bank dismissed the action. Walla, damn hard to defend yourself against corruption when you have no money or financial resources to defend with and the law within the government stands with those who are corrupt;Which particular "man' is oppressing your today?Why would you make false accusations against me when you actually have no clue why I say that? It is not freedom of the people when corporations and people with more money than the people who are actually voting are making up all this shit they are forcing upon the people.You dont get this, do you?Citizens united was a farce upon the people. Congress needs to be the fixer in this case by passing legislation reflecting such and people need to start realizing that the monsters they build will eventually come to bite them. Corporations, bodies gathered together run by a few, whether its Unions, Churches or organized groups in generally are not person nor should they have ever been granted personhood by the courts. These giants are powers and principalities.I recall 'Her Thighness Clinton' calling for this as well.
Seems Obama is going after the Constitution again
-Geaux
-------------------------------
(CNSNews.com) –President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations.
“Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United,” Obama wrote during a question and answer session on the website Reddit on Wednesday.
“Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.”
In its decision, the Supreme Court said that the government could not restrict the free-speech rights of organizations during elections, striking down key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
That law restricted how much money independent political organizations could spend and banned them from engaging in election-related speech 60 days prior to a general election.
Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights
No federal action could overturn Citizens, which speaks to Constitutional rights.
Corporations have been recognized as persons since the early 1900s.
This is about freedom. Why do you hate freedom?
When corporations can buy off judges, politicians and thugs to go after decent law abiding citizens for the greed of a few that is not freedom nor is it liberty. It is up to our Legally voted in representatives to represent us the people, not you or the group over there whoever you may be for the sake of their commerce. That is not freedom. The moment my country allowed large corporations, bought and paid for lawyers, banks, insurance companies, judges and thugs in unions to take me out of business they crushed the liberty and freedom that walks through this land. When truth was replaced with a lie in a court that was suppose to mete out lawful justice it told me pretty much all I needed to know about how corrupt our country has truly become. As a young divorce single mother over thirty years ago I actually believe our country stood for truth and liberty. It does not anymore and I don't just say that lightly. NO one stood with us as freedom, personal property rights and true justice was raped by men and women who claimed to be upholding the law. Instead they allowed illegal seizures of private property, called me a terrorist for documenting their theft, threaten to have me arrest more times than I can count as I documented what they were doing, allowed and propagated more lies than I could have ever have imagined to take out two little small business enterprises and try to taint our names forever for we could never go or try to go back into business. I'd say sir if that is what you are that you are a liar and a thief among them.
Freedom is not having giants rule over you no matter who they are!!!!!!
The mantra; 'Don't expect for a minute for your senators or congressmen to get involved either because if you stand on truth you are not welcome into the club. By the way if it was one of ours that illegally took you out don't think for a moment we will support your efforts to defend yourself either'.
I don't think you really are interested in the names involved you just are trying to create some more bullshit to try to strengthen your ideal of what others should be ruled over by. I have not forgotten your previous slander towards me. I can tell you this though, you gave your country away yourselves and when truth comes you will be the ones whining the hardest about being victimized. Me I'm just a lowly human being that has already been stomped into the ground and treaded over. I do still have the spirit in me though and some breath left to tell people about the truth of what has been done to them as people like you told them that they were going to be liberated and have true freedom.
Where do people come up with this shit? Yeah, he works with some loser who pays for Pepsi when he could have free Coke and insists Pepsi is the drink of poor people and it's Pepsi's fault for him thinking that. WTF?what advertisement ever said that pepsi was the drink of poor people?.....i never seen it....is it mind control or a superior product over other like products?....if i like coke over pepsi is that coke controlling my mind or me thinking coke is a better tasting soda?....You have to wonder what Democrats are so scared of that they are constantly demonizing Citizens and trying to overturn it. After all, it gives them the same ability to form corporations and campaign on issues as conservatives. Perhaps it is that Democrats already have all the corporations campaigning for them so anything else must be going to the opposition.
I don't agree with Citizens either.
But an amendment isn't the answer.
Seems like voters educating themselves (and not listening to the Hacks who run the communications networks) would weaken the power of money.
But then again that's not going to happen, is it? Look at how many people are taken in by advertising, McDonalds, Pepsi, Coca-Cola being some of the bigger ones. They make a fortune because they mind control so many people.
I'll give an example.
I worked in a small supermarket close to a national park one summer. The guy who was in charge of the afternoon shift was a 'Nam vet. His wife had left him with two girls to bring up, and a rather large dog.
He could get Coca-Cola for free from the taps we had over by the Deli. He was on food stamps so being able to shove his body full of sugar for free, you'd think, would be a good thing.
No. He went and bought Pepsi at 99 cents (before tax) a bottle, almost no matter the size of the bottle.
I asked him why. He said it was because Pepsi was the drink of the poor people and Coca-Cola wasn't.
How could he have got this idea? Only through advertising. He had been bought, his mind controlled.
Harry Dresden
Adamantium Member
i just have never seen that ad....figured the weird one would have shown it at least...Where do people come up with this shit? Yeah, he works with some loser who pays for Pepsi when he could have free Coke and insists Pepsi is the drink of poor people and it's Pepsi's fault for him thinking that. WTF?what advertisement ever said that pepsi was the drink of poor people?.....i never seen it....is it mind control or a superior product over other like products?....if i like coke over pepsi is that coke controlling my mind or me thinking coke is a better tasting soda?....I don't agree with Citizens either.
But an amendment isn't the answer.
Seems like voters educating themselves (and not listening to the Hacks who run the communications networks) would weaken the power of money.
But then again that's not going to happen, is it? Look at how many people are taken in by advertising, McDonalds, Pepsi, Coca-Cola being some of the bigger ones. They make a fortune because they mind control so many people.
I'll give an example.
I worked in a small supermarket close to a national park one summer. The guy who was in charge of the afternoon shift was a 'Nam vet. His wife had left him with two girls to bring up, and a rather large dog.
He could get Coca-Cola for free from the taps we had over by the Deli. He was on food stamps so being able to shove his body full of sugar for free, you'd think, would be a good thing.
No. He went and bought Pepsi at 99 cents (before tax) a bottle, almost no matter the size of the bottle.
I asked him why. He said it was because Pepsi was the drink of the poor people and Coca-Cola wasn't.
How could he have got this idea? Only through advertising. He had been bought, his mind controlled.
I never heard of that as a marketing tactic. Maybe we'll get some proof.i just have never seen that ad....figured the weird one would have shown it at least...Where do people come up with this shit? Yeah, he works with some loser who pays for Pepsi when he could have free Coke and insists Pepsi is the drink of poor people and it's Pepsi's fault for him thinking that. WTF?what advertisement ever said that pepsi was the drink of poor people?.....i never seen it....is it mind control or a superior product over other like products?....if i like coke over pepsi is that coke controlling my mind or me thinking coke is a better tasting soda?....But then again that's not going to happen, is it? Look at how many people are taken in by advertising, McDonalds, Pepsi, Coca-Cola being some of the bigger ones. They make a fortune because they mind control so many people.
I'll give an example.
I worked in a small supermarket close to a national park one summer. The guy who was in charge of the afternoon shift was a 'Nam vet. His wife had left him with two girls to bring up, and a rather large dog.
He could get Coca-Cola for free from the taps we had over by the Deli. He was on food stamps so being able to shove his body full of sugar for free, you'd think, would be a good thing.
No. He went and bought Pepsi at 99 cents (before tax) a bottle, almost no matter the size of the bottle.
I asked him why. He said it was because Pepsi was the drink of the poor people and Coca-Cola wasn't.
How could he have got this idea? Only through advertising. He had been bought, his mind controlled.
LOL!!!
Flopper
Diamond Member
Ultimately SCOTUS.That are limits to any constitutional right.I recall 'Her Thighness Clinton' calling for this as well.
Seems Obama is going after the Constitution again
-Geaux
-------------------------------
(CNSNews.com) –President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations.
“Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United,” Obama wrote during a question and answer session on the website Reddit on Wednesday.
“Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.”
In its decision, the Supreme Court said that the government could not restrict the free-speech rights of organizations during elections, striking down key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
That law restricted how much money independent political organizations could spend and banned them from engaging in election-related speech 60 days prior to a general election.
Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights
Who will enforce this suppression of speech?
-Geaux
Corporate personhood is for the most part an American invention, one that will allow corporatocracy to control economic and political systems in the 21st century. The Supreme Court's ruling that corporations are entitle to individual rights will go a long way to insure this.
Obama who is well aware of the power corporations have over congress and our elections knows such an amendment is very unlikely. He makes that clear when he refers to the proposal as "long term" and "even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight on the super-PAC phenomenon." The future is already written; read and weep.
That of course is not true. Corporations as persons goes back to English Common Law.Ultimately SCOTUS.That are limits to any constitutional right.I recall 'Her Thighness Clinton' calling for this as well.
Seems Obama is going after the Constitution again
-Geaux
-------------------------------
(CNSNews.com) –President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations.
“Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United,” Obama wrote during a question and answer session on the website Reddit on Wednesday.
“Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.”
In its decision, the Supreme Court said that the government could not restrict the free-speech rights of organizations during elections, striking down key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
That law restricted how much money independent political organizations could spend and banned them from engaging in election-related speech 60 days prior to a general election.
Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights
Who will enforce this suppression of speech?
-Geaux
Corporate personhood is for the most part an American invention, one that will allow corporatocracy to control economic and political systems in the 21st century. The Supreme Court's ruling that corporations are entitle to individual rights will go a long way to insure this.
Obama who is well aware of the power corporations have over congress and our elections knows such an amendment is very unlikely. He makes that clear when he refers to the proposal as "long term" and "even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight on the super-PAC phenomenon." The future is already written; read and weep.
- Thread starter
- #189
Ultimately SCOTUS.That are limits to any constitutional right.I recall 'Her Thighness Clinton' calling for this as well.
Seems Obama is going after the Constitution again
-Geaux
-------------------------------
(CNSNews.com) –President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations.
“Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United,” Obama wrote during a question and answer session on the website Reddit on Wednesday.
“Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.”
In its decision, the Supreme Court said that the government could not restrict the free-speech rights of organizations during elections, striking down key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
That law restricted how much money independent political organizations could spend and banned them from engaging in election-related speech 60 days prior to a general election.
Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights
Who will enforce this suppression of speech?
-Geaux
Corporate personhood is for the most part an American invention, one that will allow corporatocracy to control economic and political systems in the 21st century. The Supreme Court's ruling that corporations are entitle to individual rights will go a long way to insure this.
Obama who is well aware of the power corporations have over congress and our elections knows such an amendment is very unlikely. He makes that clear when he refers to the proposal as "long term" and "even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight on the super-PAC phenomenon." The future is already written; read and weep.
If we get more candidates like Trump, this discussion becomes moot
Wait, maybe he can't speak for 60 days prior to the election since he is a corporation so to speak
-Geaux
Flopper
Diamond Member
Yes, it goes back to English Common Law, however in France, Germany, Japan, China, and most of the rest of the world, corporations derive their rights through statues not through a constitution. However, I doubt that will last very long as corporate influence and power increases throughout the world.That of course is not true. Corporations as persons goes back to English Common Law.Ultimately SCOTUS.That are limits to any constitutional right.I recall 'Her Thighness Clinton' calling for this as well.
Seems Obama is going after the Constitution again
-Geaux
-------------------------------
(CNSNews.com) –President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations.
“Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United,” Obama wrote during a question and answer session on the website Reddit on Wednesday.
“Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.”
In its decision, the Supreme Court said that the government could not restrict the free-speech rights of organizations during elections, striking down key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
That law restricted how much money independent political organizations could spend and banned them from engaging in election-related speech 60 days prior to a general election.
Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights
Who will enforce this suppression of speech?
-Geaux
Corporate personhood is for the most part an American invention, one that will allow corporatocracy to control economic and political systems in the 21st century. The Supreme Court's ruling that corporations are entitle to individual rights will go a long way to insure this.
Obama who is well aware of the power corporations have over congress and our elections knows such an amendment is very unlikely. He makes that clear when he refers to the proposal as "long term" and "even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight on the super-PAC phenomenon." The future is already written; read and weep.
Last edited:
hortysir
In Memorial of 47
SCOTUS upholds ACA and "it's the law of the land"I recall 'Her Thighness Clinton' calling for this as well.
Seems Obama is going after the Constitution again
-Geaux
-------------------------------
(CNSNews.com) –President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations.
“Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United,” Obama wrote during a question and answer session on the website Reddit on Wednesday.
“Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.”
In its decision, the Supreme Court said that the government could not restrict the free-speech rights of organizations during elections, striking down key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
That law restricted how much money independent political organizations could spend and banned them from engaging in election-related speech 60 days prior to a general election.
Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights
SCOTUS upholds CU and it needs overturned
Hypocrisy much?
Flopper
Diamond Member
If we get enough candidates like Trump, the constitution will be moot.Ultimately SCOTUS.That are limits to any constitutional right.I recall 'Her Thighness Clinton' calling for this as well.
Seems Obama is going after the Constitution again
-Geaux
-------------------------------
(CNSNews.com) –President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations.
“Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United,” Obama wrote during a question and answer session on the website Reddit on Wednesday.
“Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.”
In its decision, the Supreme Court said that the government could not restrict the free-speech rights of organizations during elections, striking down key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
That law restricted how much money independent political organizations could spend and banned them from engaging in election-related speech 60 days prior to a general election.
Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights
Who will enforce this suppression of speech?
-Geaux
Corporate personhood is for the most part an American invention, one that will allow corporatocracy to control economic and political systems in the 21st century. The Supreme Court's ruling that corporations are entitle to individual rights will go a long way to insure this.
Obama who is well aware of the power corporations have over congress and our elections knows such an amendment is very unlikely. He makes that clear when he refers to the proposal as "long term" and "even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight on the super-PAC phenomenon." The future is already written; read and weep.
If we get more candidates like Trump, this discussion becomes moot
Wait, maybe he can't speak for 60 days prior to the election since he is a corporation so to speak
-Geaux
Last edited:
Preacher
Gold Member
Oh and here I thought he was trying to block actual PEOPLE from using the first amendment. Just another retard lying.I recall 'Her Thighness Clinton' calling for this as well.
Seems Obama is going after the Constitution again
-Geaux
-------------------------------
(CNSNews.com) –President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations.
“Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United,” Obama wrote during a question and answer session on the website Reddit on Wednesday.
“Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.”
In its decision, the Supreme Court said that the government could not restrict the free-speech rights of organizations during elections, striking down key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
That law restricted how much money independent political organizations could spend and banned them from engaging in election-related speech 60 days prior to a general election.
Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights
Which president has infringed most on the Constitution since FDR? Right, Obama.If we get enough candidates like Trump, the constitution will be moot.Ultimately SCOTUS.That are limits to any constitutional right.I recall 'Her Thighness Clinton' calling for this as well.
Seems Obama is going after the Constitution again
-Geaux
-------------------------------
(CNSNews.com) –President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations.
“Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United,” Obama wrote during a question and answer session on the website Reddit on Wednesday.
“Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.”
In its decision, the Supreme Court said that the government could not restrict the free-speech rights of organizations during elections, striking down key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
That law restricted how much money independent political organizations could spend and banned them from engaging in election-related speech 60 days prior to a general election.
Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights
Who will enforce this suppression of speech?
-Geaux
Corporate personhood is for the most part an American invention, one that will allow corporatocracy to control economic and political systems in the 21st century. The Supreme Court's ruling that corporations are entitle to individual rights will go a long way to insure this.
Obama who is well aware of the power corporations have over congress and our elections knows such an amendment is very unlikely. He makes that clear when he refers to the proposal as "long term" and "even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight on the super-PAC phenomenon." The future is already written; read and weep.
If we get more candidates like Trump, this discussion becomes moot
Wait, maybe he can't speak for 60 days prior to the election since he is a corporation so to speak
-Geaux
SCOTUS upholds ACA and "it's the law of the land"I recall 'Her Thighness Clinton' calling for this as well.
Seems Obama is going after the Constitution again
-Geaux
-------------------------------
(CNSNews.com) –President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations.
“Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United,” Obama wrote during a question and answer session on the website Reddit on Wednesday.
“Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.”
In its decision, the Supreme Court said that the government could not restrict the free-speech rights of organizations during elections, striking down key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
That law restricted how much money independent political organizations could spend and banned them from engaging in election-related speech 60 days prior to a general election.
Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights
SCOTUS upholds CU and it needs overturned
Hypocrisy much?
Holding opinions, and agreeing with some SCOTUS decisions while disagreeing with others is not "hypocrisy".
hortysir
In Memorial of 47
When you hear, "The SCOTUS has ruled. Live with it. It's the law of the land" It IS hypocritical to not say the same for another ruling the SCOTUS has made.SCOTUS upholds ACA and "it's the law of the land"I recall 'Her Thighness Clinton' calling for this as well.
Seems Obama is going after the Constitution again
-Geaux
-------------------------------
(CNSNews.com) –President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations.
“Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United,” Obama wrote during a question and answer session on the website Reddit on Wednesday.
“Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.”
In its decision, the Supreme Court said that the government could not restrict the free-speech rights of organizations during elections, striking down key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
That law restricted how much money independent political organizations could spend and banned them from engaging in election-related speech 60 days prior to a general election.
Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights
SCOTUS upholds CU and it needs overturned
Hypocrisy much?
Holding opinions, and agreeing with some SCOTUS decisions while disagreeing with others is not "hypocrisy".
But, hey....
At least there's consistency in the hypocrisy
nat4900
Diamond Member
- Mar 3, 2015
- 42,021
- 5,965
- 1,870
- Banned
- #197
When you hear, "The SCOTUS has ruled. Live with it. It's the law of the land" It IS hypocritical to not say the same for another ruling the SCOTUS has made.
Dare I guess which SCOTUS rulings/decisions that somewhat reversed each other your ilk agrees with or opposes?
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
Decreed a slave was his master's property and African Americans were not citizens; struck down the Missouri Compromise as unconstitutional.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
The Court stated that segregation was legal and constitutional as long as "facilities were equal"—the famous "separate but equal" segregation policy.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)
Reversed Plessy v. Ferguson "separate but equal" ruling. "
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
This decision ruled that the prohibition on interracial marriage was unconstitutional. Sixteen states that still banned interracial marriage at the time were forced to revise their laws.
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 146,658
- 69,794
- 2,330
I recall 'Her Thighness Clinton' calling for this as well.
Seems Obama is going after the Constitution again
-Geaux
-------------------------------
(CNSNews.com) –President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations.
“Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United,” Obama wrote during a question and answer session on the website Reddit on Wednesday.
“Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.”
In its decision, the Supreme Court said that the government could not restrict the free-speech rights of organizations during elections, striking down key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
That law restricted how much money independent political organizations could spend and banned them from engaging in election-related speech 60 days prior to a general election.
Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights
Should throw Obama in prison next to Kim for not obeying a SCOTUS decision
frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 46,416
- 9,914
- 2,030
what advertisement ever said that pepsi was the drink of poor people?.....i never seen it....is it mind control or a superior product over other like products?....if i like coke over pepsi is that coke controlling my mind or me thinking coke is a better tasting soda?....You have to wonder what Democrats are so scared of that they are constantly demonizing Citizens and trying to overturn it. After all, it gives them the same ability to form corporations and campaign on issues as conservatives. Perhaps it is that Democrats already have all the corporations campaigning for them so anything else must be going to the opposition.
I don't agree with Citizens either.
But an amendment isn't the answer.
Seems like voters educating themselves (and not listening to the Hacks who run the communications networks) would weaken the power of money.
But then again that's not going to happen, is it? Look at how many people are taken in by advertising, McDonalds, Pepsi, Coca-Cola being some of the bigger ones. They make a fortune because they mind control so many people.
I'll give an example.
I worked in a small supermarket close to a national park one summer. The guy who was in charge of the afternoon shift was a 'Nam vet. His wife had left him with two girls to bring up, and a rather large dog.
He could get Coca-Cola for free from the taps we had over by the Deli. He was on food stamps so being able to shove his body full of sugar for free, you'd think, would be a good thing.
No. He went and bought Pepsi at 99 cents (before tax) a bottle, almost no matter the size of the bottle.
I asked him why. He said it was because Pepsi was the drink of the poor people and Coca-Cola wasn't.
How could he have got this idea? Only through advertising. He had been bought, his mind controlled.
Does everything have be said in a simplistic manner for you to accept things? Jeez.
They have had ad campaigns out for decades, the manner in which they advertise tells people things. It's not "you're poor, drink pepsi", it's done in subtle ways.
But then again I'm guess a lot of people don't see this, why? Because that's why these adverts works. It's why politicians can control millions of people. You need only look on here to see the power of advertising on the unsuspecting. They'll believe anything. Obama's a Muslim. Obama was born in Kenya and all that. It was done through various forms of advertising.
Mustang
Gold Member
I recall 'Her Thighness Clinton' calling for this as well.
Seems Obama is going after the Constitution again
-Geaux
-------------------------------
(CNSNews.com) –President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations.
“Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United,” Obama wrote during a question and answer session on the website Reddit on Wednesday.
“Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.”
In its decision, the Supreme Court said that the government could not restrict the free-speech rights of organizations during elections, striking down key provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
That law restricted how much money independent political organizations could spend and banned them from engaging in election-related speech 60 days prior to a general election.
Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights
Is it free speech if and when it's bought and paid for? That sounds like advertising to me. In fact, it may very well be better classified as false advertising if false and intentionally defamatory claims are being made in the process. Tell me, since when is false advertising considered sacrosanct?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 157
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 98
- Replies
- 79
- Views
- 1K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 67
- Replies
- 29
- Views
- 111
- Replies
- 94
- Views
- 562
- Replies
- 93
- Views
- 1K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8504
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 482
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-