User avatar
Nobody
10 Feb 2012 07:37 pm
Nobody
User avatar
The term is relative. They saw her immediately after the incident...They did not. Broaddrick was away from home, and traveling with only one other person.NOT FOUR!The FBI didn't believe her, but you do.In 1997, Broaddrick had filed a sworn affidavit with Paula Jones' lawyers, denying that Clinton ha...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
RichClem
10 Feb 2012 07:36 pm
RichClem
User avatar
Which has nothing or next to nothing to do with Citizens United and the way it freed speech and upheld the Constitution.It wasn't about contributions. It was about advertising one's political opinions; i.e political speech.If corporations have all the same Constitutional rights as individuals, th...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
Nobody
10 Feb 2012 07:30 pm
Nobody
User avatar
Which has nothing or next to nothing to do with Citizens United and the way it freed speech and upheld the Constitution.It wasn't about contributions. It was about advertising one's political opinions; i.e political speech.If corporations have all the same Constitutional rights as individuals, then ...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
RichClem
10 Feb 2012 07:27 pm
RichClem
User avatar
If she has four contemporaneous witnesses who saw her trauma....Juanita Broaddrick didn't have 4 contemporaneous witnesses.Do you even know what the word means?contemporaneous - occurring in the same period of timeShe was traveling with one other person.No one else saw her trauma contemporaneously....
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
Nobody
10 Feb 2012 07:06 pm
Nobody
User avatar
If she has four contemporaneous witnesses who saw her trauma....Juanita Broaddrick didn't have 4 contemporaneous witnesses.Do you even know what the word means?contemporaneous - occurring in the same period of timeShe was traveling with one other person.No one else saw her trauma contemporaneously....
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
RichClem
10 Feb 2012 01:28 pm
RichClem
User avatar
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaa, HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA, HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!No, a "union" is not a "person." And people belonging to both unions and corporations should be severely restricted in how the people belonging to either can hide behind the legal entity in donating money to political camp...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
Skeptic
10 Feb 2012 01:24 pm
Skeptic
User avatar
How about answering my question? How about answering my question, moonbat. Are you advocating we be able to violate unions' free speech? If not, why not? Are unions "people?"Unions spend many millions in secret. Should we outlaw that?What you're advocating is a blatant violation of the Constit...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
RichClem
10 Feb 2012 12:00 pm
RichClem
User avatar
How about answering my question, moonbat. Are you advocating we be able to violate unions' free speech? If not, why not? Are unions "people?"What I'm advocating......How about answering my question? How about answering my question, moonbat. Are you advocating we be able to violate unions' free...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
Nobody
09 Feb 2012 11:50 pm
Nobody
User avatar
Here is a very interesting article about how corporations hijacked the 14th Amendment (meant to secure the political rights of former slaves) in an attempt to establish corporate personhood.The Fourteenth Amendment offered an opportunity to advance corporate interests, and the corporate attorneys se...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
Nobody
09 Feb 2012 11:31 pm
Nobody
User avatar
Misty: Cite the SCOTUS ruling where corporations were declared 'people' and were said to be entitled to the same Constitutional rights as individuals.U.S. Supreme Court LOUISVILLE, C. & C. R. CO. v. LETSON, 43 U.S. 497 (1844) 43 U.S. 497 (How.) THE LOUISVILLE, CINCINNATI, AND CHARLESTON RAILROAD...
— LiberalForum Archive