Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 04 Dec 2014 6:40 pm » wrote: Attempting to limited WHOSE free speech, nanny state? The court said it was the CORPORATION which had the rights- INDEPENDENT FROM those actual, real-life people WHO WERE NOT PARTIES TO THE CASE, whom you lied were being denied their rights. The court did not find ONE HUMAN BEING whose rights were violated, you lying little huey coward.

As a general rule, committed liar, court verdicts are awarded in favor of either PLAINTIFFS, or DEFENDANTS - not in favor of fucking bystanders, you lying little rat-mouth.


Huey clone, if you want to spew koolaid for corporations, SPEW it. But spew it like a goddamned man, you worthless little creep. Don't then try to cocksucker me with your ****-mouthing, you effeminate little insect. The court said the CORPORATION had the right , not the people.

And you cheered and huzzahed and picked your side - which is with the corporations. Trying to both-ways-weasel that you're still a man of the people is exactly what I'd expect from a sneaky, down-low restroom cruiser who runs from his wife's vadge while jeering at well-socialized, competent, honest-in-their-relationships gay people.

Citizens United

The CT legislature paid for a study of the court's ruling in CU to see if the state had existing compliance issues to fix. The motive for the study was apolitical, as were it's methodologies which are made available at the link. The study I am presenting is virtually identical to everything that every nonpartisan study has concluded. The issue was the rights of corporations, NOT the rights of people, as weasels lie who want to walk both sides of the field politically, as WELL as sexually - in an obvious signal of their inability to choose.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0124.htm