Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Liberal Lioness of The Supreme Court

[GreenBean]

She's so dynamic........

Holy Fuck!!!!
Look at the liver spots on her hand!!!

 

[GreenBean]

Oh and you fucking lying retard,the decision did NOT favor a conservative cause, it upheld the right to free speech.

The decision favored a conservative organization. Are you to stupid to know that? But that is not my problem with the decision. My problem with it is that MONY buys free speech by whoever has it, Can you get that?

If you're spending "MONY" it costs you something ... so how is it free ?

 

[Uncensored2008]

o Basically, you WANT a society where people can be arrested and imprisoned for making movies critical of politicians.

That is really stupid! Where , when and how did I ever suggest such a thing?

Look, you're an oppressive, you seek to crush all civil rights. What do your Oberfuhrers tell you that CU v. FEC was about? I suspect you have NO fucking idea. You hate because you are told to hate. Understanding is for your superiors.

{
Citizens United is a nonprofit corporation. It brought this action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. A three-judge court later convened to hear the cause. The resulting judgment gives rise to this appeal.

Citizens United has an annual budget of about $12 million. Most of its funds are from donations by individuals; but, in addition, it accepts a small portion of its funds from for-profit corporations.

In January 2008, Citizens United released a film entitled Hillary: The Movie. We refer to the film as Hillary. It is a 90-minute documentary about then-Senator Hillary Clinton, who was a candidate in the Democratic Party’s 2008 Presidential primary elections. Hillary mentions Senator Clinton by name and depicts interviews with political commentators and other persons, most of them quite critical of Senator Clinton. Hillary was released in theaters and on DVD, but Citizens United wanted to increase distribution by making it available through video-on-demand.

Video-on-demand allows digital cable subscribers to select programming from various menus, including movies, television shows, sports, news, and music. The viewer can watch the program at any time and can elect to rewind or pause the program. In December 2007, a cable company offered, for a payment of $1.2 million, to make Hillary available on a video-on-demand channel called “Elections ’08.” App. 255a–257a. Some video-on-demand services require viewers to pay a small fee to view a selected program, but here the proposal was to make Hillary available to viewers free of charge.

To implement the proposal, Citizens United was prepared to pay for the video-on-demand; and to promote the film, it produced two 10-second ads and one 30-second ad for Hillary. Each ad includes a short (and, in our view, pejorative) statement about Senator Clinton, followed by the name of the movie and the movie’s Website address. Id., at 26a–27a. Citizens United desired to promote the video-on-demand offering by running advertisements on broadcast and cable television.}

{{meta.pageTitle}}


So in FACT you are demanding that people be arrested and put in prison for making films that criticize politicians.

You seek to crush civil rights, particularly the right to freedom of speech.

Such is the way of you Stalinists.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Of course you live under the delusion that you Stalinist scum will always have absolute power.

Stalinist ? Thinking that I or any progressives are Stalinist is really stupid and pathetic.

You are an oppressive, and yes, you are absolutely a Stalinist.

You seek to crush civil rights and establish an oppressive totalitarian regime.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh and you fucking lying retard,the decision did NOT favor a conservative cause, it upheld the right to free speech.

The decision favored a conservative organization. Are you to stupid to know that? But that is not my problem with the decision. My problem with it is that MONY buys free speech by whoever has it, Can you get that?

The decision upheld the right of a still free people to engage in speech critical of party members, much to your chagrin.

Simply put, you and your evil Stalinist party attempted to end the 1st Amendment, and failed.

 

[Uncensored2008]

A society that puts people in prison for criticizing politicians is a tyranny - which is what you and the other Stalinist pigs like you desire.

I agree ! Your boy T-rump is the one who wants to do that. Are you so stupid that you don't know that. ?

Really, let's see where Trump advocated for making speech against an opposition politician a criminal act, as you have?

Oh wait, you're just lying. STALINIST.... : eusa_whistle:

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
That is too fucking idiotic. I am not a Marxist and do not want to control what people say or think. That would be the Tumpanzies

Oh, well THAT must be why you want to criminalize speech critical of party politicians.



Dude, you're a fucking Stalinist - own up to it.