Supreme Court Rules McCainFeingold Violated the 1st

[White_Male_Canada]

More lies by omission Queen? Yup, and more spamming and hi-jacking from queen,the VillageIdiot..



Village Idiot misquotes him/herself and Lies by Omission:

The ability of the IRS to prosecute for this sort of thing [using transfer pricing to evade taxation] is limited. That’s the point of using a tax haven to begin with.

The convenient omission:

Not illegal??? Wow, you really don’t know a fucking thing about this, do you? How about part of a nice article from MSN Money:


Last week, Merck, the pharmaceutical multinational, announced that it will pay 2.3 billion dollars in back taxes, interest and penalties in one of the largest settlements for tax evasion the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has ever imposed.
Merck had cooked its tax books by moving ownership of its drug patents to its own Bermuda shell company -- an entity that has no real employees and does no real work -- and then deducting from U.S. taxes the huge royalties it paid itself. While setting up a shell company is not inherently illegal, it is if tax authorities determine that its only purpose is to evade taxes.. Bermuda is a tax haven that has no levy on royalties
http://www.financialrealtime.com/sto...ews697278.html

My original reply:

LOL. What a fucking jerk ! Thanks for stating the obvious asshole,

" While setting up a shell company is not inherently illegal, it is if tax authorities determine that its only purpose is to evade taxes."

… my cat is more qualified to discuss – let alone interpret – legal matters than you.

Your own words tell us you`re a fucking Liar, and a total ignoramus :

within the legal community is that the coming review is based upon this criteria and that it will actually strengthen McCain-Feingold before it’s over...

... he's completely reversed himself from that initial post (in this thread's previous incarnation) that tried to present this USSC's ruling as a far broader ruling than it was...

This ruling deals with only a small part of McCain-Feingold (BCRA), hence the words “as applied to the advertisements at issue in these cases.” [u]The court's decision, however, has no effect on the farther-reaching components of McCain-Feingold (BCRA)

Queen, you`re a fucking idiot. The Court was not there to deal with the parts of McCain/Feingold that were irrelevant to the first amendment, such as personal spending thresholds for Senate candidates, Restrictions on State & Local Party Soft Money Spending,consolidated reporting provisions,etc,

Moron, at issue was Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. That section made it illegal to refer by name to a candidate for federal office in an ad run 30 days before a primary election, or 60 days before a general election.

Now it is legal!

What don`t you understand retard !?

I understand you desperately want to reinterpret your way out of this, but the above point was used to refute the implication you made that the decision entailed more than it actually did, as if it supported your long-held claims that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional and "shredded the 1st."

Tell it to the 5 Justices moron.

But when it comes to defining what speech qualifies as the functional equivalent of express advocacy subject to such a ban—the issue we do have to decide—we give the benefit of the doubt to speech, not censorship. The First Amendment’s command that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech” demands at least that. The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is affirmed. It is so ordered…. I join the principal opinion because I conclude (a) that §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, 2 U. S. C. §441b(b)(2) (2000 ed., Supp. IV), as applied, cannot constitutionally ban … because §203 is unconstitutional as applied to the advertisements before us, it is unnecessary to go further and decide whether §203 is unconstitutional on its face."Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J


Teaching you lessons, humiliating and embarrassing you, is easier than a two dollar Bangkok whore.

aresponsebyquinntothisoranyotherofmyrepliesisadmit tanceheisthesamequinnatchadzboyzandisrogers

[Quinn]

We'll be free to continue this when I get back from Buenos Aires in a week. Until then, enjoy your status as the forum's disgraced pariah and foremost liar because I know I will:

1) Once again:

This ruling deals with only a small part of McCain-Feingold (BCRA), hence the words “as applied to the advertisements at issue in these cases.” The court's decision, however, has no effect on the farther-reaching components of McCain-Feingold (BCRA) – its ban on the ability of political parties to raise unlimited and unrestricted amounts of money from unions, corporations, and wealthy donors, etc. – which still stand. You see, stupid, declaring the instance specific application of a lone provision within McCain-Feingold unconstitutional is not the same as declaring the BCRA unconstitutional itself which is what you claimed, let alone supporting any melodramatic proclamations of “shredding the 1st(other provisions also have clear 1st ammendment implicaitons).

I understand you desperately want to misrepresent your way out of this, but the above point was used to refute the implication you made in the now deleted thread that the decision entailed more than it actually did, as if it supported your long-held claims that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional and "shredded the 1st." It’s okay, stupid. I know the reason you did it.

You see, want wit, I know that you copied and pasted much of your initial post in this thread’s first incarnation from part of a post on a blogger’s site (http://www.jayreding.com/). The problem is that you did so without reading his entire post, let alone the initial decision itself. That’s why you didn’t even initially understand the limited scope of the case. You were clearly afraid that I would discover this fact after I called you on not reading or understanding the decision – which is why you edited that initial post immediately afterward. Svenson and Rogers also called you on it. You can deny it all you want, but we know the truth and are used to it. After all, this isn’t the only time you’ve been caught doing this sort of thing, is it (numerous respected posters have called you out for this sort of thing in the past):

You added this crap to your post after I had responded to it.

Prior to this point I had considered WMC to be intelligent, articulate, and well-informed, despite his untenable, questionable, even hateful conclusions. However, going back to edit a post (which is an historical document, albeit in a casual and fluid forum environment) in order to undercut his opponent's point of view--a sort of post-pre-emptive strike--is bad form and undermines his argument for those who have followed the course of the debate; only those coming to read the thread after the fact might be fooled by this tactic.

So tell me it’s not true. You don’t go back and revise your old posts to make your arguments anticipate your opponent’s objections, do you??? What a bad little boy you are! I don't even know why anyone should argue with you now.

Yeh, the fucking tosser waited till he saw I was logged in, then he edited his last post. WHAT A FUCKING SNEAKY BASTARD!!!

2) Your grasp of constitutional law and the US legal system is so underwhelming that you previously argued in a conversation, concerning the US Supreme Court’s 2003 decision on McCain-Feingold (BCRA), that said court doesn’t even have the final authority it just exercised.

The pantywaist blurted out that the “Supreme Court – the ultimate authority on such matters – upheld the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold’s key provisions.”

You`re ignorance is now on parade. The USSC is NOT the ultimate authority on such matters,Congress is. You are oblivious to the fact that in certain matters Congress has the ultimate authority. . . .

To bad for you the US Supreme Court and Congress’s relevant bodies disagree:

The Supreme Court’s own website:

While Congress has ultimate authority to modify or set aside any such rules that are not constitutionally required, e.g., Palermo v. United States, 360 U.S. 343, 345—348, it may not supersede this Court’s decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution see, e.g., City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 517—521.

Former Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Patrick Leahy

In matters of constitutional interpretation, the Court’s rulings are the supreme law of the land[/b], whether they are decided unanimously or by a single vote.

Former Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Arlen Specter

. . . it is fundamental that Congress not legislate contradiction to a constitutional interpretation of the Supreme Court.

Congressional Research Service Testimony before a House of Representatives subcommittee.

According to a unanimous ruling by the Court in the Little Rock crisis, Marbury ''declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution.''Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (195. That principle was reasserted by the Court in the reapportionment case of Baker v. Carr (1962): [b]Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.'', Seven years later, in the exclusion case of Adam Clayton Powell, the Court again referred to itself as the ''ultimate interpreter'' of the Constitution., Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 549 (1969).

Chief Justice John Marshall

It is, emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

3) Hell, you’re so unbelievably ignorant of this nation’s laws that you previously argued the use of transfer pricing by corporations to evade taxes isn’t illegal.???

The ability of the IRS to prosecute for this sort of thing [using transfer pricing to evade taxation] is limited. That’s the point of using a tax haven to begin with.

Limited !? Holy fuck you’re an arse. It`s limited because it`s not illegal.

Here’s but one of many examples of a corporation being prosecuted for something your uneducated stated isn't illegal:

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...162359,00.html

Face the facts, cupcake, my cat is more qualified to discuss – let alone interpret – legal matters than you. Fuck, you’re dumb.

-Quinn

[White_Male_Canada]

aresponsebyquinntothisoranyotherofmyrepliesisadmit tanceheisthesamequinnatchadzboyzandisrogers

We'll be free to continue this when I get back from Buenos Aires in a week. :

LOL This from the VillageIdiot who`s been caught in one lie of omission after another ! LOL

You`ve lost again merely by replying yet are too stupid to even know it.


Now let`s review the litany of lies and just plain ass-backwards contentions that have emanated from this anencephalic`s head:

Village Idiot misquotes him/herself and Lies by Omission:

The ability of the IRS to prosecute for this sort of thing [using transfer pricing to evade taxation] is limited. That’s the point of using a tax haven to begin with.

The convenient omission:

Not illegal??? Wow, you really don’t know a fucking thing about this, do you? How about part of a nice article from MSN Money:


Last week, Merck, the pharmaceutical multinational, announced that it will pay 2.3 billion dollars in back taxes, interest and penalties in one of the largest settlements for tax evasion the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has ever imposed.
Merck had cooked its tax books by moving ownership of its drug patents to its own Bermuda shell company -- an entity that has no real employees and does no real work -- and then deducting from U.S. taxes the huge royalties it paid itself. While setting up a shell company is not inherently illegal, it is if tax authorities determine that its only purpose is to evade taxes.. Bermuda is a tax haven that has no levy on royalties
http://www.financialrealtime.com/sto...ews697278.html

My original reply:

LOL. What a fucking jerk ! Thanks for stating the obvious asshole,

" While setting up a shell company is not inherently illegal, it is if tax authorities determine that its only purpose is to evade taxes."

… my cat is more qualified to discuss – let alone interpret – legal matters than you.

Your own words tell us you`re a fucking Liar, and a total ignoramus :

within the legal community is that the coming review is based upon this criteria and that it will actually strengthen McCain-Feingold before it’s over...

... he's completely reversed himself from that initial post (in this thread's previous incarnation) that tried to present this USSC's ruling as a far broader ruling than it was...

This ruling deals with only a small part of McCain-Feingold (BCRA), hence the words “as applied to the advertisements at issue in these cases.” [u]The court's decision, however, has no effect on the farther-reaching components of McCain-Feingold (BCRA)

Queen, you`re a fucking idiot. The Court was not there to deal with the parts of McCain/Feingold that were irrelevant to the first amendment, such as personal spending thresholds for Senate candidates, Restrictions on State & Local Party Soft Money Spending,consolidated reporting provisions,etc,

Moron, at issue was Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. That section made it illegal to refer by name to a candidate for federal office in an ad run 30 days before a primary election, or 60 days before a general election.

Now it is legal!

What don`t you understand retard !?

I understand you desperately want to reinterpret your way out of this, but the above point was used to refute the implication you made that the decision entailed more than it actually did, as if it supported your long-held claims that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional and "shredded the 1st."

Tell it to the 5 Justices moron.

But when it comes to defining what speech qualifies as the functional equivalent of express advocacy subject to such a ban—the issue we do have to decide—we give the benefit of the doubt to speech, not censorship. The First Amendment’s command that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech” demands at least that. The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is affirmed. It is so ordered…. I join the principal opinion because I conclude (a) that §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, 2 U. S. C. §441b(b)(2) (2000 ed., Supp. IV), as applied, cannot constitutionally ban … because §203 is unconstitutional as applied to the advertisements before us, it is unnecessary to go further and decide whether §203 is unconstitutional on its face."Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J

You see, I know that you copied and pasted much of your initial post from part of a post on a blogger’s site (http://www.jayreding.com/).

Take the challenge sissy, prove it or get out.

Teaching you lessons, humiliating and embarrassing you, is easier than a two dollar Bangkok whore.

[White_Male_Canada]

McCain the next president? Please tell me you didn't say that, Quinn. Pretty soon, dude is gonna have to get a job a "McDono's" just to pay the rent on his campaign.

It`s gets even more amusing.

Ron Paul has $2.4 million in cash on hand, ahead of John McCain, who has only $2 million in the bank.

McCain`s toast. All`s left is to remove this Songbird in the primaries so get your collectibles while you can.