54212 432 Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 5 minutes ago, jehurey said: Nope.........point out where she voted for compelled speech. What part of her opinion specifically implies that. Point out the opinion where they banned the private ownership of guns. And you are saying that CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE?????? Yes or No question........you're being asked for a third time. There's a reason why I also asked "are you man enough" to answer the question. (BTW, you don't to answer that supplemental question.......already got the answer). Compelled speech: Janus Ban on private ownership of guns: Hellar Corporations are groups of people. No where does the constitution ban groups of people from engaging in political speech as a group. If you don't like it, fine, amend the constitution. But fuck your judicial activism. It's outright tyranny. Are you really this dumb? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,230 Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 1 minute ago, Saucer said: Compelled speech: Janus Ban on private ownership of guns: Hellar Corporations are groups of people. No where does the constitution ban groups of people from engaging in political speech as a group. If you don't like it, fine, amend the constitution. But fuck your judicial activism. It's outright tyranny. Are you really this dumb? No............point to the passage in the opinion in which they are talking about compelling speech. Point to the passage in the opinion in which they support a ban on private ownership of guns. NO............you called it judicial ACTIVISM that is CLEARLY AGAINST the law. Explain to me that Ruth Bader Ginburg's position that the Creators of the Constitution were going to give non-person corporate entities the same rights to speech as American citizens.........and explain to me how Ruth Bader Ginburg's position is just SO OUT OF THE NORM from the Constitution and the spirit of the law. Because that is what "judicial activism" is. You telling me that Ruth Bader Ginburgs opinion is so ILLOGICAL because it is CLEARLY IMPLIED that the Constitution supported this. The Constitution supported giving non-person entities the power to influence government through speech, and RBG egregiously came to an illogical conclusion that its obvious that she is motivated by her own personal thoughts and feelings rather than trying to follow the rule of law. Prove that to me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
54212 432 Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 2 minutes ago, jehurey said: No............point to the passage in the opinion in which they are talking about compelling speech. Point to the passage in the opinion in which they support a ban on private ownership of guns. NO............you called it judicial ACTIVISM that is CLEARLY AGAINST the law. Explain to me that Ruth Bader Ginburg's position that the Creators of the Constitution were going to give non-person corporate entities the same rights to speech as American citizens.........and explain to me how Ruth Bader Ginburg's position is just SO OUT OF THE NORM from the Constitution and the spirit of the law. Because that is what "judicial activism" is. You telling me that Ruth Bader Ginburgs opinion is so ILLOGICAL because it is CLEARLY IMPLIED that the Constitution supported this. The Constitution supported giving non-person entities the power to influence government through speech, and RBG egregiously came to an illogical conclusion that its obvious that she is motivated by her own personal thoughts and feelings rather than trying to follow the rule of law. Prove that to me. Now comes the moronic time sink delaying tactics because you lost. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,230 Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 Just now, Saucer said: Now comes the moronic time sink delaying tactics because you lost. Looks like he's done. I went and I TOOK his own subject from him. Just went up and grabbed it. Like a stale pie sitting on a window-sill Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kokujin 558 Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 Jeh I really think you're off-kilter for assuming this guy won't hit track just because he's Asian. Times are VERY changing, and I actually think this is what 'America' in it's celeb fame needs. I also think him being asian helps right now. He made a race-joke towards trump (and himself). He def. has the balls to fight back. And he's MUCH nicer than trump, focusing on rural votes, which have been deciders, AND is willing/platforming to give money to the public? He can get votes if people can get past their racism. I think this guy's smart enough to not let his book ruin him. I do remember how FIFTEEN YEARS AGO, that wrecked Mt. Romney but this guy already has a voice/rapport with the liberal laymens. He's probably smart enough to honestly say "ya know, actually, I've learned from my mistakes. here.. here. here. here." I would want this du to get track. I applaud his identity. I don't know if his economics is sound, but it's def. worth listening to new ideas. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jehurey 3,230 Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 9 minutes ago, kokujin said: Jeh I really think you're off-kilter for assuming this guy won't hit track just because he's Asian. [slow, deep inhale] [slow exhale] Where did I talk about him being asian? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vini 430 Posted January 11, 2019 Author Share Posted January 11, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, jehurey said: I like how you think trying to change the subject over to Bernie is helping you. Its not. Bernie ended up getting pressured in different ways because he was the ONLY opposition to Clinton. You see........Mr. Yang isn't going to get ANY pressure..........because he's not going to get ANY press whatsoever. he'll get less air-time than Martin O'Malley. Maybe even less than Lincoln Chafee. THAT is where your whining will stem from. And you'll have no real reason, because there will be enough big-name candidates during the primary that will drown out the longshots. And Bernie is going to support Elizabeth Warren. That's why we haven't heard from Bernie at all,. There goes the "true liberal" vote. We'll see about that. The traction is all there for him and momentum is building. Yang is gonna be on Rogan next month. You're not paying attention. Trump is going to EAT Warren. He can't do shit to Yang. Edited January 11, 2019 by Vini Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kokujin 558 Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 12 hours ago, jehurey said: [slow, deep inhale] [slow exhale] Where did I talk about him being asian? ovreall you seem to think no one will take him seriously, and he'll fade away. why exactly? "fading away"? besides the book he titled poorly. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Voidler 1,675 Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 I watched the video the guy speaks really well and does address issues that corporate Democrats are deaf to Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.