Supreme Court Rules McCainFeingold Violated the 1st

[White_Male_Canada]

Another legal vindication, as usual. 8)

I long ago stated that McCainFeingold aka, BCRA § 203 shredded, violated, abridged, infringed, breached, transgressed and basically pooh-poohed the 1st Amendment.

That opinion was verified by the majority decision of the USSC in the consolidated case of Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 06-969, and McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 06-970.

Contrast the courts substantiation of my opinion with that of the local villageidiot who postings clearly indicated support of the unconstitutional law:

quinn:

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...

USSC Ruling and reality:



"...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

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Free speech rights take precedence over government restrictions on political advertising, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a decision that opens the door for greater influence by interest groups in the closing days of an election.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court eased legal barriers aimed at corporate- and union-financed television ads, a decision whose tone suggests greater hostility on the court to federal limitations on money in politics.
The decision upheld an appeals court ruling that a Wisconsin anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final two months before the 2004 elections. The law unreasonably limits speech and violates the group's First Amendment rights, the court said.
The law, a provision in the 2002 campaign finance act, banned corporations and unions from paying for political "issue ads" that mentioned a candidate for federal office within 60 days of a federal election and 30 days of a primary or caucus.

"Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinent in an election," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. "Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."

The law's provision not only applies to organized labor and business corporations, but also to any special interest that operated as a corporation, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Rifle Association and the Sierra Club — groups frequently involved in elections. The ruling does not change a ban on ads that specifically call for the election or defeat of a candidate.

"This decision helps put the NRA in the same playing field as the politicians and the big media conglomerates going into the 2008 elections," Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, said in an interview.

A first test of the impact of the court's opinion could come as early as December, a month before presidential caucuses and primaries in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina open the nomination process.
The case addressed television ads by Wisconsin Right to Life that asked voters to contact the state's two senators, Democrats Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl, and urged them not to filibuster President Bush's judicial nominees. Because Feingold was up for re-election at the time, the Federal Election Commission said the ads violated the 2002 campaign finance law that Feingold and Sen. John McCain helped write.

Campaign finance experts said that while the court's decision, written by Roberts, applied specifically to the Wisconsin case, the ruling has far-reaching implications.

In making his argument, Roberts said ads that focus on a legislative issue, take a position on an issue and urge the public to contact a public official is a legitimate "issue ad" that should run no matter how close to the election. Whether the ads intend to affect an election, Roberts said, does not matter.

"I don't think (Chief) Justice Roberts is naive," Richard L. Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School Los Angeles, said. "He knows full well that the test that the court has articulated today will lead to a great deal of corporation- and union- funded election advertising."

Writing more broadly, Roberts said the court has upheld contribution limits and some limits on expenditures in the interest of preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption. But he said that interest "must be stretched yet another step" in the Wisconsin case.
"Enough is enough," Roberts wrote.

Some campaign finance experts said Roberts' phrase carried a deeper meaning.
"For anybody who is looking for trouble ahead, that's certainly one of the places you would look," Robert Bauer, a campaign finance lawyer who is representing Barack Obama's presidential campaign. "He wants to remind everybody that having reviewed the entire line of argument up to this point he had quite enough of it."

The court's decision does not address the more far-reaching component of the campaign finance law — it's ban on the ability of political parties to raise unlimited and unrestricted amounts of money from unions, corporations and wealthy donors.

But some campaign finance experts said that by opening the door to corporate and union-financed advertising, the court set the stage for a broader challenge to the law.
"Fundamentally what this case does is destabilize the state of campaign finance law as it existed when Justice (Sandra Day) O'Connor was on the court," said Nathaniel Persily, professor of law and political science at Columbia Law School.

The decision means the FEC likely will have to step in and write specific rules about advertising that reflects the court's opinion. The commission may face pressure to act before the end of the year.
The decision is a setback for McCain, who is now running for president. McCain has come under criticism from conservatives for attempting to restrict political money and political advertising.
"Obviously, I regret that decision, but it was very narrow," McCain told reporters in Columbia, S.C.

Presidential rival Mitt Romney cheered the ruling: "It's the beginning of an opening, I believe, to remove McCain-Feingold and its provisions that affect free speech and hopefully it's broader provisions."

The court's majority was itself divided on the issue, with Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito saying only that the Wisconsin group's ads are not the equivalent of explicit campaign ads. They specifically said they were not overruling a 2003 court opinion that upheld the campaign finance law provision.

The three other justices that formed the majority — Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — would have overruled the court's 2003 decision.

Justice David Souter, joined by his three liberal colleagues, said in his dissent that the court "effectively and, unjustifiably, overruled" the earlier decision.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens joined Souter's dissent.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_campaign_finance

[Quinn]

1) [u]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 rmisrepresent 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/changed that initial post immedietly afterward (I wasn’t the only poster who called you one it either) 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 (multiple other posters have called you out on it)...

2) You still can't even explain your contradictory positions on which branch of government has the ultimate authority to determine constitutionality in this matter:


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. . . .

LMAO........ You can backpedal or try and change your positions all you want, stupid, but you've been exposed again. Hey, here's an idea: why don't you go back and edit some more of your posts to hide your contradictions, lies, and lack of factual comprehension.

[b]3)Just how many times are you going to waffle and morph your position anyway. Seriously, I count at least three times so far. Are you going to go for four? How about changing it some more and going for five? Five seems like a good numbert Don’t worry, Whiite_Dissembling_Dullard, we’ve all seen you do this too many times to be surprised at this point (How many times have you morphed positions during climactic debates? We’ve all lost count.).

Too easy... Just like when you folded like a bitch during that little test of wills the other night.

-Quinn

[White_Male_Canada]

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)




Fucking 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 !?

" 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." Alito




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."


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 any advertisement that may reasonably be interpreted as anything other than an appeal to vote for or against a candidate, (b) that the ads at issue here may reasonably be interpreted as something other than such an appeal, and (c) that 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. If it turns out that the implementation of the as-applied standard set out in the principal opinion impermissibly chills political speech, see post, at 15.16 (SCALIA, J., joined by KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ., concurring in part and concurring in judgment), ALITO




This from the moron who authoritatively stated:

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...



You still haven't even come close to explaining your contradictory positions on which branch of government has the ultimate authority to determine constitutionality in this matter

Now the "Fiesta Resistance". This ignoramous takes a shellacing and learns a lesson in regards to the USSC, how it is the end point of litigation and how Article III applies, making Congress the ultimate authority. The point flies so far over this Village Idiots head it still doesn`t get it ! To top it off this useless self embarrassing retard then continues on in it`s complete ignorant bliss and states with complete sincerity:


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...

[White_Male_Canada]

Too easy... Just like when you folded like a bitch during that little test of wills the other night

You`re as easy as an anencephalic two dollar crack whore, and just as fucking retarded.

:lol: Debating you? The debate is always over after you`re first reply. After I obliterate you irrational reply you return to post the same garbage again, denying reality, the rest of your shit merely consists of spamming and hi-jacking, i`m humiliating you (seelink). :lol:

PREDICTION:

The villageidiot continues the disruptive pattern of spamming/hi-jacking:

quinn:

Like I said previously, I'm going to push this until we eventually both get banned by the mods. – at which point the P&R forum can hold the type of debates HA used to have regularly

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=22273

[Quinn]

1) [u]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 rmisrepresent 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/changed that initial post immedietly afterward (I wasn’t the only poster who called you one it either) 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 (multiple other posters have called you out on it)...

2) You still can't even explain your contradictory positions on which branch of government has the ultimate authority to determine constitutionality in this matter:


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. . . .

LMAO........ You can backpedal or try and change your positions all you want, stupid, but you've been exposed again. Hey, here's an idea: why don't you go back and edit some more of your posts to hide your contradictions, lies, and lack of factual comprehension.

[b]3)Just how many times are you going to waffle and morph your position anyway. Seriously, I count at least three times so far. Are you going to go for four? How about changing it some more and going for five? Five seems like a good numbert Don’t worry, Whiite_Dissembling_Dullard, we’ve all seen you do this too many times to be surprised at this point (How many times have you morphed positions during climactic debates? We’ve all lost count.).

Too easy... Just like when you folded like a bitch during that little test of wills the other night.

-Quinn

[White_Male_Canada]

ATTN: MODS:

QUINN AKA THE VILLAGEIDIOT IS HI-JACKING AND SPAMMING.

THIS LUNATIC HAS ADMITTED SO AND WISHES TO BE BANNED.

GRANT THIS INDIVIDUAL IT`S WISH:


Like I said previously, I'm going to push this until we eventually both get banned by the mods. – at which point the P&R forum can hold the type of debates HA used to have regularly





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)



Fucking 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.




You still haven't even come close to explaining your contradictory positions on which branch of government has the ultimate authority to determine constitutionality in this matter.

Now the "Fiesta Resistance". This ignoramous takes a shellacing and learns a lesson in regards to the USSC, how it is the end point of litigation and how Article III applies, making Congress the ultimate authority. The point flies so far over this Village Idiots head it still doesn`t get it ! To top it off this useless self embarrassing retard then continues on in it`s complete ignorant bliss and states with complete sincerity:


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...

[svenson]

this is the tru record of humiliation. so sad you always humiliate youself w-m-c. heres list of what persons say about you hear



Problem is , lies don`t hold up to the facts.
That's probably why no one believes a word you say either here or in public!


Nice try _Canada, but I wouldn't give up your day job. Like I said, lies and half-truths, simplifications and straw men. But no doubt you'll keep at it, just like Stewie below, and Spooky Mulder in the X-Files.


hahahahahaha so funny specialk, your wit has made my day - Don't Listen to WMC - "she" is a piece of sh*t


My opinion has nothing to do with it. You keep making this allegation without offering even a shred of evidence that it's true. You just make this unsupported assertion and say, "So there." Then, when I call you on it, you post one thing and claim that it's another. You're dishonest, Michael, and that bugs me.


I have read 'my' Constitution, several hundred times. Now explain this to me. Where did I ever state that civilians do not have authority over the military. The only person in this ongoing debate that brings up the question of civilian authority is you, yet you continue to use it as a 'strawman' to divert attention from the fact that you have no answer to the questions that are repeatedly posed to you.

As to exposing an intellectual shallowness by calling opponents names…


Man, I must nominate WMC, as the most retard fuck in the Universe! You're not actually from Canada are you? Maybe you are, and you live in a hut on a melting ice pack on Hudson Bay


Once again, you are either misstating, or misrepresenting the facts.


What can I say, you’re so confused and desperate to obfuscate that you now your mixing lies with diversions, accusations and bone-headedness.

Let’s begin with the lies: you never mentioned the 15 micron line…an irrelevant line to our discussion…until a few posts back…long after you already claim CO2 was absorbing as much as it can and no higher concentrations could absorb more...go back and look.

Let’s look at the diversion and accusation: I never mentioned VOCs, HFC, and PFCs. We’re talking CO2.

Let’s look at the bone-headedness: The 15 micron line is outside the window of infrared transparency. As long as it remains outside the window it’s relevant to the issue of further warming. That one line is already doing all it can to warm the Earth. This is in fact you’re original argument, but restricted to the 15 micron line. So of course the other two absorption lines which are within the window are now more relevant. If we dump higher concentrations of CO2 into the atmosphere it will be those lines that will have the task of soaking up more energy. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what makes two higher energy lines minor, in this regard, relative to the lower energy 15 micron line way outside the window.


ive lurked here enough to sea you loose this argument to lg trish and other persons. why should i repeet what evryone now knows. you change your position and contradict youself many times in other arugments you loose now no one takes you seriously. you do it to youself.

all you do is insult and try to be tough guy. you make antigay remarks and insult persons sickness you are low person and is why all persons on the HA dont respect you as an adult man. you are sad and no like youself


I want you to read this editorial carefully, and stop with your repugs bullshit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR2007030602020.html

Ouch ! Be humble, you're a loser.


Ongoing debate? Perhaps the ongoing debate that White_Pinhead_Chickenhawk and his ilk need to be concerned with is the debate between themselves and their own hypocrisy...


No wonder no one responds to WMC anymore...Mandy posts a good article that raises some interesting points, and he reponds with an off topic diatribe.


I see medical science isn't your strong suit. hey, but at least you're getting good at character defamation.


I've had enough of your arguments and tedious repetition of words like "EnviroGestapo". I am sorry that you have not yet realised that you do not know what you are talking about.


For everyone that reads these posts, it must be made clear that WhiteMaleCandada is truly without a point....and those who tolerate his foolishness must see this as time goes forward.

WhiteMale could not respond to the issue of John Howard not "putting up" sufficient troops to make his so-called support of the Iraq war, instead he relies on moving to what i call "shiny keys" (diverting the point to something not relevant to the issue but instead becomes a direct attack on the person being discussed......

Again, why are you here on this board. Why don't you go somewhere where right wingers will make you feel like a king....of the other dummies.





That you, Micheal, would call anyone else gay is hysterical. Know what I mean, White_Closeted_Male.

I think WMC's real name is Timmy, Quinn. Whatever it really is, who cares, I find the guy repulsive, and that's just from what he writes. He really does seem to have a big thing about owning other guys sexually, maybe that's what turns him on about transsexuals? And from what he's said himself, he clearly is active on far more boards than this one. You've definitely hit the nail on the head about him, Quinn, he's a hypocrite and a fraud!!! Not only does he frequently lie to others, he appears to frequently lie to himself. They call that being deluded!

Hey, I_love_Cristina_Bianchini, I see you've come to the exact same conclusion as just about every other poster on this forum – save for WMC’s two NeoCon confederates. Chesterton's – oops, I mean WMC’s – "debates" follow an all too familiar pattern where he will initially make numerous factually unsustainable assertions, which then invariably get obliterated by real facts. This, in turn, invariably causes him to fall back upon secondary assertions, usually based upon selective reinterpretations of his initially disproved assertions. Once these secondary assertions are crushed as well, he falls back again, with the same pattern repeating itself over and over. As the “debate” drags on, White_Morphing_Male will change his position more times than hooker at an orgy. We've all seen him do it during a number of debates – like the climate debate, when Trish bitched his ass – and we’ve most certainly seen it here. It just gets better and better.

No wonder they even make fun of him on the General Discussion forum. Essentially, his NPD fueled ignorance is the gift that keeps on giving. :lol: :lol: :lol:

-Quinn

Yep Quinn, WMC is a bully, and like all bullies he's weak and insecure, that what fuels his N.P.D.! Like I said, a very disagreeable man who doesn't get along with people here because they see right through him, and apparently, the same also applies in his Professional life. I wish you, and everyone else, the best in your arguments with him!!!


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.


Christ your such an arsehole.
seanchai


First of all, I never said that. Nice try. :wink:


Second of all, it would have saved everyone a lot of time if you would have just told everyone you were a troll right from the begining.


White Canada Male - honestly I don't know what your doing here besides trying to boost your own self-esteem by trying to prove how intelligent you are. This is a forum for those that like T-girls and politics. You only like politics so why don't you just go to another forum and let TFan do all of the dirty work for you. At least he shares your sick political perspective and likes Tgirls.


Middle finger people like WhiteMaleCanada (MFP's are people that you give the finger when you see them or hear them around) are never every concerned about what a foreign leader has to say unless they fall in lock step with the stupid thoughts they generate in their fevered brains.


I've tried to abstain from responding to this post and have given up trying to read the messages. But I have absorbed the slant of "White_Male_Canada".

Jesus, you're a pain in the ass. Get a job or a hobby or something. Who gives a flying fuck about what you think. Reflect on that! I don't give a fuck about what I think.

I said you're a pain in the ass. I was wrong! You're a talking ass.



Hagel ? That the one who compared the US armed forces to Nazis?

Nope. You can't even bother to keep your own bullshit straight.


I strung those letters together on purpose knowing dolts like you would get tripped up. For fucks sakes it`s a Colt AR-15 A2 Govt model w/H-bar. I suppose you don`t even know the twist rate?

Thanks! You reminded me of the old PeeWee Herman line: "I meant to do that!"

Heehee. Cracks me up every time.

The A2 is a nice weapon. Twist rate is 1:7. Do the bayonet lugs make you feel like a real soldier?


What is it with you angry little people? Can`t stand the fact that there are others who really don`t think socialism and collectivism is the be all end all?

Personally, what makes me angry are liars and dissemblers, particularly those who are abuse my country and hold my fellow American citizens in contempt. I don't much care where you are politically, but you're a liar, so I feel compelled to demean and humiliate you.


Hey pinhead ...what up??? Still going to therapy for that liberal cocksucking fetish of yours?????


The rest of the comments are just laughable. Clearly this person can't be serious.


Dude, if we thought like you we would still think the earth was flat.


because WMC has even less than he has intellect.


Michael, this thread is moving beyond merely irritating to boring. I’m going to reply to this silliness once more. If you need it repeated for a third time, then you’re going to have to find somebody else. I don’t have the patience to work with the developmentally disabled.



You dumb fucking liar.

Well if anyone should know it's you, your the biggest dumb fucking liar here by a million miles, eh "Prof." (allegedly)!


I don't want to seem like an intellectual snob and no doubt you'll tell me that I'm avoid the debate. But there is no point debating with someone like you who lacks a basic understanding of something but seems to think that he knows everything. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, WMC.


WMC

Let’s see:

You’ve misrepresented my assertions and you continue to misrepresent them when i make them explicity clear. That's why the fucker, fucker. And you misrepresent the assertions of the IPCC. It’s idiotic to claim, as you do, that the thousands of climatologists involved in the IPCC assessment believe that CO2 forcing is responsible for all climate changes in the geological past. I’m not saying you’re an idiot. I’m say you’ve got no integrity.

You drop names but you give no substantial arguments of your own. What formula do you use?
Your odd locutions (like “that chart in no way defines exponential growth” or "proves exponential CO2") and your repeated insistence on mundane phrases (“usually given in Watts per meter2”), which I suppose you suppose makes you sound like a scientist,
your inability to distinquish between a curve that exhibits exponential behavior over an interval and a theory from which exponential behavior can be deduced,
your inability to comprehend that a derivation from first principles (which you continually demand) is not a proof (experiment and methodical observation come as close as we get to proof in science),
all the above, indicate your unfamiliarity with the topic upon which you labor to pronounce. It’s horrifying what little integrity you seem to have.

You’re always on the edge of accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being religiously bound to their own view. Now i agree it's closed minded to be blindly bound to your own perspective. But judging from your other posts in this forum you're something of a religious zealot. So just what does it mean when you accuse someone of being a religionist? What kind of loopy criticism is that? You simply have no intellectual integrity and I simply have no more reason to continue of this discussion.

But before I go, hold out your hands….palms up, sweetie…yeah, just like that…HERE’S YOUR ASS.


God, Michael, you're tripping over your own bullshit again.



Radiation absorption is logarithmic. Once a wavelength is fully absorbed it is saturated.

and since when do logs saturate? seriously why do you even try to talk maths and physics if you clearly havent got an understanding of it?


Let me just say congratulations on qualifying as a Certified Tranny Expert for making over 1000 posts. Interestingly, not one, it seems, has been on the topic of transexuality and most have consisted of tedious drivel.


I think your warning's come too late for WMC, specialK. He does seem to have a large amount of "guys in leather" pics on his hard-drive. Until today I'd only seen some of his cowboy pics and thought that was just because he's a cowboy scientist (allegedly), but after seeing his gay biker pics today I think we're all starting to see the real WMC emerge. After him freely admitting the following, I think its a sure bet that he's active on at least a few boards far more gayer than this one.

“Then I found this Forum and decided to piss off all the lemmings. One of many left-wing boards I like to enter.” White_Male_Canada.


People, you must understand that White_Male_Canada is in fact a radical serb (so called "cetnik"). As such,he's always looking forward to see the entire west world being more radical, more christian,more conservative and more fascistic in general. Every single move from red to the blue block is something wonderful to him, in his understanding it is just a step closer to radicalisation
of the christian world. It sounds crazy, but that's it.



While you were out boating I was repelling from 100 cliffs(sans harness,repell seat) and static target practicing with my trusty AR15HHBARGvt model.What I do or how I train in my spare time is none of your concern nor does it matter.

Wow...it sounds like you guys in the Canadian boy scouts are really intense...fuckin' major....dude....

And BTW, Rambo...it's rappel not repell...

:lol: :roll: :lol: :roll:


"You are now logged as White Male Canada, Pat Robertson"



When people abandon the truth, they don’t believe in nothing, they believe in anything.

Chesterton

Love your new sig, Michael. So utterly appropriate to you.

A misquote, and not Chesterton.

http://www.chesterton.org/qmeister2/any-everything.htm


In any case, you've ingnored my responses to your skewed, illogical arguments and have replied with inane rhetoric. It seems to me you lack both a sense of humour and the ability to make a reasoned argument.


Luke 6:41-42 41 And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "Brother, let me remove the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the plank that is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck that is in your brother's eye

Your own spiritual blindness is showing.


Dude, were you dropped on your head when you were a child? WTF.


. . . theres no reasoning with WMC or inhousten or guyone, total nutcases...........


Still waiting for a reply from WMC, trish? You'll only get one from him if he thinks he can trump you. The man, or should I say shit, has not integrity!


You are pathetic.


Question for White_Male_Canada: If all you do is claim Jesus heals the blind and spout right-wing politics, then what are you doing on the HA boards? I have never seen you post any pictures of shemales or discuss them. Using a TS website just to discuss your own politics defeats the purpose of joining HA as opposed to FreeRepublic.

So answer me: why do you post on a TS website if you never or rarely discuss T-girls?


You're the most retard fuck in the Universe. It's official.


visit a doctor, man.... you really got mental problems.


There's that conspiracy talk again. Do you realize it makes you look stupid?

Why don't you read up a little on the subject before spouting any old rubbish? Just because Rush Limbaugh says something doesn't mean it's right.


But, just to go along with the analogy...we'd find out. It's called research for a reason.


YourCanadianDaddy, you are misstating the facts, but since Hannity always does, its understandable you would too.


Do you read this stuff before you cut and paste it?

"...likened to David Cameron for the way he dropped traditional policies to modernise his party..."
"...based his appeal around reforming rather than overhauling Sweden’s social welfare system..."
"...he beat the left on their home territory of popular state-funded health, education and social care services..."

The point of that story is that Reinfeldt won the election by moving the Moderate Party to the left.

And the title of your post is nonsensical. Sweden's Moderate Party and the Alliance for Sweden coalition that it leads have literally nothing in common with the neoconservative movement. Truly, not a single thing.

You should stick to demonstrating your ignorance of U.S. politics.


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!!!


It is a tactic as old as time. when some person, or group of people disagree with you, and you are unable to refute their claims, simply accuse them of some nefarious act or belief. Then, in order to make it seem real, repeat the charge loudly and often without regards to the truth or falsity of the charge.

You are doing a very good job of ignoring the questions and simply restating your claims.

Now I ask you what should be a simple question. How do you justify this staggering leap of illogic, a leap that Evel Knievel would not attempt. I eagerly await your reply.


Where in my statement did I say Ann Coulter was a US Senator? Why are you also using quotes from someone that has a bias? Of course, the publisher is not going to admit they are wrong for publishing the material. I thought it was funny when your proof of plagiarism of Joe Biden was some amateur website.


THAT'S IT?????? THAT'S ALL YOU GOT???? PINFUCKIN HEAD!!!..............ALL YOU CAN MUSTER IS A FEABLE ATTEMPT TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH?????.................


Your arguments aren't subtle, they are incoherent and non-existent.


I doubt this retard´s into T-girls. He´s just here to spread this bullshit. Seems you got too much time, WMC.


Touche!!!! You Ms Katt are the perfect foil to White_Man_ Inna White Sheet or Your Doody or what ever the f#$k he's calling himself this time around


Talk about picking your words carefully. You didn't talk splits or percentages or past history. You said, simply:


The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was pushed by more Republicans than demorats.Check the vote count

NO BS. More Democrats than Republicans voted for the Civil Rights act.

You either misstated or misrepresented what the reality was.

Then, scrambling to cover being called on it, you start namecalling with insults, try to impugn my source (which wasn't Wikipedia, for your information) without addressing its accuracy, start flinging irrelevant and incorrect crap about Kerry, and post a mean,and demeaning but meaningless picture of Hillary.


He never admits anything.

To this day he remains a pompous prevaricator of prodigious proportions....


dont waist you time. you cant talk about whats reel with him hes in his own world and has no integrity. its why people ignore him



Felicia saved your skin by pasting the 1st and not delving into the historical aspects? Hardly.


Aww, the conversation is over? So you have no substantive argument to offer at all, just baseless slander? That's shocking, Michael. I'm shocked.


I didn't say Felicia saved my skin, I said she saved me from unraveling the issue of the separation of church and state for you. I don't need my skin saved, thank you very much.

I really have better things to do than banter with you since you're obviously right and we're obviously wrong. Gawd, I just love newbies on this friggin' board. Sigh.



The overwhelming preponderance of evidence always sends them scurrying away. (quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est)

I believe it was the overwhelmig preponderance of irrelevent crap that drove your opponent on to better things.

white male canada you just posted this shit for attention because you don't even normally post here,please crawl back to your politics section and keep posting your bullshit there.


Where did I say this? Nowhere. I said no such thing. Please, read what I wrote before you launch an attack against a position which I did not take.


The truth is usually the exact opposite to what WMC says it is.

so sad for you to be a liar person

[White_Male_Canada]

this is the tru record of humiliation. so sad you always humiliate youself w-m-c. heres list of what persons say about you hear

Here comes the kook brigade again. :lol:

All the spammers and hi-jackers jumping in again to spam and hi-jack another topic.

[svenson]

you cry like a baby person

http://www.joeschedule.com/cgi/ngfop/pics/book/ak012.jpg

http://do2learn.com/picturecards/images/imageschedule/nocrying_l.gif

[White_Male_Canada]

you cry like a baby person

And you spam and hi-jack like the typical left wing kook who hasn`t a

cogent thought in it`s anencephalic empty head.

Now, try argue that the USSC was wrong :

“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech” demands at least that.[/b] 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

:lol:and the villageidiot was right :lol: :


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... :lol:

Go ahead, take a stab at it. " I challenge you ! " :lol:

[Oli]

:stop :stop :stop :stop :stop :stop :stop :stop

It's so nice that you have chosen to continue to kick a dead horse.

[White_Male_Canada]

:stop :stop :stop :stop :stop :stop :stop :stop

It's so nice that you have chosen to continue to kick a dead horse.

It is indeed dead. Dead the second I posted the subject. No one can deny the reality of the decision. Simple math dictates 5 is more than 4, no matter how badly delusional defenders of McCainFeingold are.
Their spamming/hi-jacking won`t change those facts. 8)

[Rogers]

:screwy

[Quinn]

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 rmisrepresent 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/changed that initial post immedietly afterward (I wasn’t the only poster who called you one it either) 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 (multiple other posters have called you out on it in the past)...

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 (1958). That principle was reasserted by the Court in the reapportionment case of Baker v. Carr (1962): 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 [b]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/0,,id=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]

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

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,

Fucking 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 !?


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. . . .

Now the "Fiesta Resistance".

This ignoramous takes a shellacing and learns a lesson in regards to the USSC, how it is the end point of litigation and how Article III applies, making Congress the ultimate authority. The point flies so far over this Village Idiots head it still doesn`t get it !

To top it off this useless self embarrassing retard then continues on in it`s complete ignorant bliss and states with complete sincerity:


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...

Contrast the ignorant villageidiots belief with reality :

“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech” demands at least that.[/b] 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… 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

The rest of your ignorant BS is irrelevant to the Topic and has already been dispatched with aplomb.



PREDICTION:

The villageidiot continues the disruptive pattern of spamming/hi-jacking:

quinn:

Like I said previously, I'm going to push this until we eventually both get banned by the mods. – at which point the P&R forum can hold the type of debates HA used to have regularly

[Quinn]

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 rmisrepresent 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/changed that initial post immediately afterward (I wasn’t the only poster who called you one it either) 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 (multiple other posters have called you out on it in the past)...

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 (1958). That principle was reasserted by the Court in the reapportionment case of Baker v. Carr (1962): 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 [b]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/0,,id=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]

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

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,

Fucking 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 !?


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. . . .

Now the "Fiesta Resistance".

This ignoramous takes a shellacing and learns a lesson in regards to the USSC, how it is the end point of litigation and how Article III applies, making Congress the ultimate authority. The point flies so far over this Village Idiots head it still doesn`t get it !

To top it off this useless self embarrassing retard then continues on in it`s complete ignorant bliss and states with complete sincerity:


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...

Contrast the ignorant villageidiots belief with reality :

“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech” demands at least that.[/b] 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… 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

The rest of your ignorant BS is irrelevant to the Topic and has already been dispatched with aplomb.



PREDICTION:

The villageidiot continues the disruptive pattern of spamming/hi-jacking:

quinn:

Like I said previously, I'm going to push this until we eventually both get banned by the mods. – at which point the P&R forum can hold the type of debates HA used to have regularly

[Quinn]

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 rmisrepresent 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/changed that initial post immediately afterward (I wasn’t the only poster who called you one it either) 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 (multiple other posters have called you out on it in the past)...

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 (1958). That principle was reasserted by the Court in the reapportionment case of Baker v. Carr (1962): 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 [b]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/0,,id=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]

Here let me stoop to your encephalitic level junior,

5, is more than 4 . You lose. 8)



ATTN: MODS:

QUINN AKA THE VILLAGEIDIOT IS HI-JACKING AND SPAMMING.

THIS LUNATIC HAS ADMITTED SO AND WISHES TO BE BANNED.

GRANT THIS INDIVIDUAL IT`S WISH:


Like I said previously, I'm going to push this until we eventually both get banned by the mods. – at which point the P&R forum can hold the type of debates HA used to have regularly




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

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,

Fucking 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 !?


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. . . .

Now the "Fiesta Resistance".

This ignoramous takes a shellacing and learns a lesson in regards to the USSC, how it is the end point of litigation and how Article III applies, making Congress the ultimate authority. The point flies so far over this Village Idiots head it still doesn`t get it !

To top it off this useless self embarrassing retard then continues on in it`s complete ignorant bliss and states with complete sincerity:


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...

Contrast the ignorant villageidiots belief with reality :

“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… 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

The rest of your ignorant BS is irrelevant to the Topic and has already been dispatched with aplomb.



PREDICTION:

The villageidiot continues the disruptive pattern of spamming/hi-jacking:

quinn:

Like I said previously, I'm going to push this until we eventually both get banned by the mods. – at which point the P&R forum can hold the type of debates HA used to have regularly

[LG]

Is there a point to this thread, or are you just trying to fan the flames before they die out, WMC? Whatever your excuse, it's pissing me off.

We've been through all this and there is no agreement. Flaming is pointless. Spamming is pointless. It's a non-issue now, we've read so much about it that nobody gives a fuck anymore.

Let's move on.

[Quinn]

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 rmisrepresent 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/changed that initial post immediately afterward (I wasn’t the only poster who called you one it either) 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 (multiple other posters have called you out on it in the past)...

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 (1958). That principle was reasserted by the Court in the reapportionment case of Baker v. Carr (1962): 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 [b]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/0,,id=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]

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

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,

Fucking 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 !?


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. . . .

Now the "Fiesta Resistance".

This ignoramous takes a shellacing and learns a lesson in regards to the USSC, how it is the end point of litigation and how Article III applies, making Congress the ultimate authority. The point flies so far over this Village Idiots head it still doesn`t get it !

To top it off this useless self embarrassing retard then continues on in it`s complete ignorant bliss and states with complete sincerity:


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...

Contrast the ignorant villageidiots belief with reality :

“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech” demands at least that.[/b] 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… 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

The rest of your ignorant BS is irrelevant to the Topic and has already been dispatched with aplomb.



PREDICTION:

The villageidiot continues the disruptive pattern of spamming/hi-jacking:

quinn:

Like I said previously, I'm going to push this until we eventually both get banned by the mods. – at which point the P&R forum can hold the type of debates HA used to have regularly

[White_Male_Canada]

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 sitejayreding.com...

Off your Thorazine again VillageIdiot ?

My initial post lunatic:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_campaign_finance

You`re an incomprehensible hi-jacker, spammer and of course, big time loser. :lol:


quinn:

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...




PREDICTION:

The villageidiot continues the disruptive pattern of spamming/hi-jacking:

quinn:

Like I said previously, I'm going to push this until we eventually both get banned by the mods. – at which point the P&R forum can hold the type of debates HA used to have regularly

[Quinn]

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 rmisrepresent 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/changed that initial post immediately afterward (I wasn’t the only poster who called you one it either) 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 (multiple other posters have called you out on it in the past)...

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 (1958). That principle was reasserted by the Court in the reapportionment case of Baker v. Carr (1962): 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 [b]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/0,,id=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]

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

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,

Fucking 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 !?


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. . . .

Now the "Fiesta Resistance".

This ignoramous takes a shellacing and learns a lesson in regards to the USSC, how it is the end point of litigation and how Article III applies, making Congress the ultimate authority. The point flies so far over this Village Idiots head it still doesn`t get it !

To top it off this useless self embarrassing retard then continues on in it`s complete ignorant bliss and states with complete sincerity:


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...

Contrast the ignorant villageidiots belief with reality :

“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… 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[/b]


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 jayreding.com

Off your Thorazine again VillageIdiot ?

The initial post lunatic:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_campaign_finance

You`re an incomprehensible loser.


The rest of your ignorant BS is irrelevant to the Topic and has already been dispatched with aplomb.



PREDICTION:

The villageidiot continues the disruptive pattern of spamming/hi-jacking:

quinn:

Like I said previously, I'm going to push this until we eventually both get banned by the mods. – at which point the P&R forum can hold the type of debates HA used to have regularly

[svenson]

:lol: you cant keep you storys straignt white-male-canada. you change positions on supreme court and had to edit it to hid your stupidity. we all read and saw it. you look like a fool and have humiliated youself again

you were caught lying again

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c191/goodmorningfeyettnam/humiliation.jpg

http://downthestreetcafe.com/aggies/humiliation.jpg

[White_Male_Canada]

you cant keep you storys straignt white-male-canada. you change positions on supreme court and had to edit it to hid your stupidity. we all read and saw it. you look like a fool and have humiliated youself again

you were caught lying again



You seem mildly retarded, and just like the prototypical ugly american, you know nothing of Constitutional law. 8)

[LG]

For fuck's sake!

[White_Male_Canada]

For fuck's sake!

For once I may agree with you to some degree.

It`s a simple fact, McCain/Feingold was found to violate the 1st Amendment. Your spamming/hi-jacking lunatic quinn, aka VillageIdiot, continues to deny reality and well, spams away. The VillageIdiot is just unhappy it was proven wrong, it can`t stand the idea.

Here`s hoping this insane person gets it`s wish:




quinn:
Like I said previously, I'm going to push this until we eventually both get banned by the mods. – at which point the P&R forum can hold the type of debates HA used to have regularly

[Quinn]

LMAO..... What a passive-aggressive sissy. He repeatedly posts the same tripe directly at me, then cries like a teenage girl when I respond. Guess what, cupcake. Every time you post it, I’ll respond. It’s that simple. If we’re here a year or two, that’s fine with me. Unlike you, I’m still getting paid for the time I spend here.

Now, you can resume whining to mods who don’t care about what you have to say any more than the other posters here.

http://www.kevininscoe.com/pub/stop_whining_and_get_a_life.jpg

-Quinn

[Quinn]

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 rmisrepresent 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/changed that initial post immediately afterward (I wasn’t the only poster who called you one it either) 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 (multiple other posters have called you out on it in the past)...

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 (1958). That principle was reasserted by the Court in the reapportionment case of Baker v. Carr (1962): 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 [b]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/0,,id=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]

LMAO..... What a passive-aggressive sissy. He repeatedly posts the same tripe directly at me, then cries like a teenage girl when I respond. Guess what, cupcake. Every time you post it, I’ll respond. It’s that simple. If we’re here a year or two, that’s fine with me. Unlike you, I’m still getting paid for the time I spend here.

Now, you can resume whining to mods who don’t care about what you have to say any more than the other posters here.


-Quinn

The fact you cannot face it, and deny reality coupled with the fact you merely thought you knew Constitutional law, is not my problem.


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...

You`re as dumb as a stump, I`ve proven it and that drives you insane.

Here`s hoping you get your wish moron:


Like I said previously, I'm going to push this until we eventually both get banned by the mods. – at which point the P&R forum can hold the type of debates HA used to have regularly

[Quinn]

Let me know when you're even smart enough to know which branch of goverment is empowered to perform which function – or even something so simple as the fact that tax evasion is illegal under US law – then we'll talk, White_Dissenbling_Dullard

Hey, here's an idea, want wit. How about you go back and edit some more mistakes out of your posts after getting called out on not knowing what your talking about? What an idiot.

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 rmisrepresent 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/changed that initial post immediately afterward (I wasn’t the only poster who called you one it either) 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 (multiple other posters have called you out on it in the past)...

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 (1958). That principle was reasserted by the Court in the reapportionment case of Baker v. Carr (1962): 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 [b]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/0,,id=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]

quinn:

Like I said previously, I'm going to push this until we eventually both get banned by the mods. – at which point the P&R forum can hold the type of debates HA used to have regularly





Hey, here's an idea, want wit. How about you go back and edit some more mistakes out of your posts after getting called out on not knowing what your talking about?

LOL :lol: You`ve confused me with your split personality:


quinn:

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...

This ignoramous takes a shellacing and learns a lesson in regards to the USSC, how it is the end point of litigation and how Article III applies, making Congress the ultimate authority. The point flies so far over this Village Idiots head it still doesn`t get it !

[/b]


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)



Fucking 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



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...

You`re as easy as a two dollar anencephalic crack whore :lol:

[LG]

This thread blows. Enough already.

And to WMC: If you think you have been proven right (and I don't give a shit by now) then just sit back in the glow of your own self-satisfaction and stop posting- because nobody cares by now. This is the only way this thread is ever going to end.

There was never a need to even create this thread.

[svenson]

you cant keep you storys straignt white-male-canada. you change positions on supreme court and had to edit it to hid your stupidity. we all read and saw it. you look like a fool and have humiliated youself again

you were caught lying again



You seem mildly retarded, and just like the prototypical ugly american, you know nothing of Constitutional law. 8)

im not a person from america white-male-canda persons that know flags know. your a liar perosn an get caught all the time. rogers was right your obsesed

[White_Male_Canada]

This thread blows. Enough already.

And to WMC: If you think you have been proven right (and I don't give a shit by now) then just sit back in the glow of your own self-satisfaction and stop posting- because nobody cares by now. This is the only way this thread is ever going to end.

There was never a need to even create this thread.

It was a USSC ruling and has everything to do with politics and free speech so the Topic was/is relevant. Then it was hi-jacked and spammed and deleted. So I restored the original topic. Mods never told anyone anything about not restoring the original.

Hey! there ya go,another complaint for the kook brigade to go cry to mommy about. Tell them the dissenters dared to re-post the original article.

Somebody cares, otherwise they wouldn`t come back over an over to spam/hi-jack and be humiliated by their own words:


Like I said previously, I'm going to push this until we eventually both get banned by the mods. – at which point the P&R forum can hold the type of debates HA used to have regularly...

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...



You`re brow-beating the wrong person lg.Ah but then we know if i were spamming those nonsensical childish topics that are completely irrelevant concerning either politics or religion you`d be belly-aching that i was a disruptive spammer who wanted to be banned and could prove so with my own words.

I don`t think I`ve been proven correct, it is not an opinion solely of mine. It`s a proven fact I am correct, that point is beyond debate anymore. That the villageidiot refuses to accept reality and continually spams gives me the right to the last reply, being my topic.

Am I visiting the villageidiot`s nonsensical topics with my nick in it and spamming/hi-jacking?

Common etiquette dictates the author of the topic reserves the right to reply.

[White_Male_Canada]

you cant keep you storys straignt white-male-canada. you change positions on supreme court and had to edit it to hid your stupidity. we all read and saw it. you look like a fool and have humiliated youself again

you were caught lying again



You seem mildly retarded, and just like the prototypical ugly american, you know nothing of Constitutional law. 8)

im not a person from america white-male-canda persons that know flags know. your a liar perosn an get caught all the time. rogers was right your obsesed

Nope, you ARE mildy retarded.

I never said you WERE american. I said "just like".

8)

[LG]

you cant keep you storys straignt white-male-canada. you change positions on supreme court and had to edit it to hid your stupidity. we all read and saw it. you look like a fool and have humiliated youself again

you were caught lying again



You seem mildly retarded, and just like the prototypical ugly american, you know nothing of Constitutional law. 8)

im not a person from america white-male-canda persons that know flags know. your a liar perosn an get caught all the time. rogers was right your obsesed

Nope, you ARE mildy retarded.

I never said you WERE american. I said "just like".

8)

Then you should learn to punctuate properly- you know, not confusing your commas with your periods, stuff like that. It would be good if you could make sense in the first place rather than post away and then tell people off for failing to understand (that's a tall order for you, I know). Let's not get into your spelling. At least svenson has an excuse. What's yours?

[Quinn]

you cant keep you storys straignt white-male-canada. you change positions on supreme court and had to edit it to hid your stupidity. we all read and saw it. you look like a fool and have humiliated youself again

you were caught lying again



You seem mildly retarded, and just like the prototypical ugly american, you know nothing of Constitutional law. 8)

im not a person from america white-male-canda persons that know flags know. your a liar perosn an get caught all the time. rogers was right your obsesed

LOL... You have to keep in mind, svenson, that you're dealing with an individual who clearly lacks anything approaching a proper education and who obviously isn't well traveled. It's evident to the rest of us – none of whom suffer from White_Dissembling_Duallard’s all too numerous intellectual deficiencies – that, like numerous HA posters, English isn't your first language.

-Quinn

[Quinn]

Blah! Blah! Blah!

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 rmisrepresent 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/changed that initial post immediately afterward (I wasn’t the only poster who called you one it either) 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 (multiple other posters have called you out on it in the past)...

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 (1958). That principle was reasserted by the Court in the reapportionment case of Baker v. Carr (1962): 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 [b]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/0,,id=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

[LG]

These are just very few examples of a myriad....

Last edited by White_Male_Canada on Mon Jul 02, 2007 11:34 pm; edited 3 times in total

Last edited by White_Male_Canada on Sat Jun 30, 2007 1:05 am; edited 4 times in total

Last edited by White_Male_Canada on Sat Jun 30, 2007 1:07 am; edited 5 times in total

Last edited by White_Male_Canada on Sun Jul 01, 2007 4:32 am; edited 1 time in total

Why does WMC keep editing his posts? Is it because he can never get it right the first time? Is it because he changes position more often than he changes his underwear?

And why does he never tell us what changes he made, as some posters, including myself, always do? Is it because he doesn't want us to see that his original post was even more full of shit? Is it because he can never tell the truth?

I don't think asking such questions makes me a kook. It merely makes me inquisitive. But for giving me reason to come up with them, I would not like to say what it makes WMC.

[White_Male_Canada]

Like I said previously, I'm going to push this until we eventually both get banned by the mods. – at which point the P&R forum can hold the type of debates HA used to have regularly


[/b]


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)



Fucking 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 still haven't even come close to explaining your contradictory positions on which branch of government has the ultimate authority to determine constitutionality in this matter.

Now the "Fiesta Resistance". This ignoramous takes a shellacing and learns a lesson in regards to the USSC, how it is the end point of litigation and how Article III applies, making Congress the ultimate authority. The point flies so far over this Village Idiots head it still doesn`t get it ! To top it off this useless self embarrassing retard then continues on in it`s complete ignorant bliss and states with complete sincerity:


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...



You`re as easy as a two dollar anencephalic crack whore :lol:

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=22273

[White_Male_Canada]

These are just very few examples of a myriad....

Last edited by White_Male_Canada on Mon Jul 02, 2007 11:34 pm; edited 3 times in total


Why does WMC keep editing his posts? Is it because he can never get it right the first time? Is it because he changes position more often than he changes his underwear?

And why does he never tell us what changes he made, as some posters, including myself, always do?.

Best complain to your mommy lg otherwise known as the mods. Ask that they delete the edit function.

Told you a zillion times, i type extemporaneously and reserve the right to the final reply when i`m the author of the topic.

Now lets compare extemporaneous thought with the villageidiot who never has practiced critical thought:


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...


Like I said previously, I'm going to push this until we eventually both get banned by the mods. – at which point the P&R forum can hold the type of debates HA used to have regularly

Keep crying , condoning spam/hi-jackers and being an all around left wing kook.




8)

[Quinn]

These are just very few examples of a myriad....

Last edited by White_Male_Canada on Mon Jul 02, 2007 11:34 pm; edited 3 times in total

Last edited by White_Male_Canada on Sat Jun 30, 2007 1:05 am; edited 4 times in total

Last edited by White_Male_Canada on Sat Jun 30, 2007 1:07 am; edited 5 times in total

Last edited by White_Male_Canada on Sun Jul 01, 2007 4:32 am; edited 1 time in total

Why does WMC keep editing his posts? Is it because he can never get it right the first time? Is it because he changes position more often than he changes his underwear?

And why does he never tell us what changes he made, as some posters, including myself, always do? Is it because he doesn't want us to see that his original post was even more full of shit? Is it because he can never tell the truth?

I don't think asking such questions makes me a kook. It merely makes me inquisitive. But for giving me reason to come up with them, I would not like to say what it makes WMC.

WMC has a history of editing his posts to remove mistakes or to add things that weren't initially there – to make his earlier posts appear to counter damaging arguments later placed in those same threads by opposing posters. Here are but a few examples (there are more) of respected posters commenting on WMC's actions:


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.

In this matter, 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 was done because he wasn't initially familiar with the case and didn't actually read the ruling itself. Hell, he couldn't even read the standardized format for the case correctly to understand that "BCRA §203" meant it only dealt with section/provision 203 or he wouldn't have even made the initial post, which he edited 6 times to hide his mistake. Sven and Rogers commented on it as well. Everything since then has simply been an effort to cover up that fact.

-Quinn

[Quinn]

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 rmisrepresent 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/changed that initial post immediately afterward (I wasn’t the only poster who called you one it either) 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 (multiple other posters have called you out on it in the past)...

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 (1958). That principle was reasserted by the Court in the reapportionment case of Baker v. Carr (1962): 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 [b]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/0,,id=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]

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


LOL. Sure moron.

This from the VillageIdiots anencephalic pee-brain as conclusive proof he/she hasn`t the foggiest clue as to the law:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

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...
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Like I said previously, I'm going to push this until we eventually both get banned by the mods. – at which point the P&R forum can hold the type of debates HA used to have regularly


[/b]


... 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)



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,


Fucking 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 !?




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.




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...


Too easy... Just like when you folded during that little test of wills the other night.

You`re as easy as a two dollar anencephalic crack whore :lol:

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=22273

[Quinn]

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.

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 (1958). That principle was reasserted by the Court in the reapportionment case of Baker v. Carr (1962): 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 [b]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/0,,id=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]

Like I said previously, I'm going to push this until we eventually both get banned by the mods. – at which point the P&R forum can hold the type of debates HA used to have regularly


[/b]


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)



Fucking 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.




You still haven't even come close to explaining your contradictory positions on which branch of government has the ultimate authority to determine constitutionality in this matter.

Now the "Fiesta Resistance". This ignoramous takes a shellacing and learns a lesson in regards to the USSC, how it is the end point of litigation and how Article III applies, making Congress the ultimate authority. The point flies so far over this Village Idiots head it still doesn`t get it ! To top it off this useless self embarrassing retard then continues on in it`s complete ignorant bliss and states with complete sincerity:


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...


Too easy... Just like when you folded during that little test of wills the other night.

You`re as easy as a two dollar anencephalic crack whore :lol:

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=22273

[Quinn]

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.

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 (1958). That principle was reasserted by the Court in the reapportionment case of Baker v. Carr (1962): 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 [b]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/0,,id=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


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.

What's funny is I'm all for campaign finance reform but I'm even more for flexing some constitutional muscle!

Damn, Chief Roberts. Already busting ass so early in the game?

[White_Male_Canada]

What's funny is I'm all for campaign finance reform but I'm even more for flexing some constitutional muscle!

Damn, Chief Roberts. Already busting ass so early in the game?

And on this board, I`m busting queen`s, aka the VillageIdiot`s ass. :lol:


Queen aka VillagIdiot still bitchin`, moanin` and complainin` that she doesn`t know shit from shinola !?


… 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!?




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 you and embarrassing you, is easier than a two dollar Bangkok whore.
:lol:

[Quinn]

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.

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 (1958). That principle was reasserted by the Court in the reapportionment case of Baker v. Carr (1962): 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 [b]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/0,,id=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.

http://www.navycs.com/gallery2/d/4367-2/loser.JPG

-Quinn

[White_Male_Canada]

Queen still bitshin` and ichin` to get banned? :lol:



Like I said previously, I'm going to push this until we eventually both get banned by the mods. – at which point the P&R forum can hold the type of debates HA used to have regularly


[/b]


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,


Fucking 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.




You still haven't even come close to explaining your contradictory positions on which branch of government has the ultimate authority to determine constitutionality in this matter.

Now the "Fiesta Resistance". This ignoramous takes a shellacing and learns a lesson in regards to the USSC, how it is the end point of litigation and how Article III applies, making Congress the ultimate authority. The point flies so far over this Village Idiots head it still doesn`t get it ! To top it off this useless self embarrassing retard then continues on in it`s complete ignorant bliss and states with complete sincerity:


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...



The second one where he actually attempted to usurp my original position, trying – and pitifully failing – to claim it as his original position;
His latest, modified position.

Irrelevant bullshit in a desperate attempt to deflect from the germane issue.

You lose again VillageIdiot, a typical ugly american with zero knowledge of Constitutional law :
:lol:

This from the moron who authoritatively stated:


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...


:lol:

[Quinn]

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.

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 (1958). That principle was reasserted by the Court in the reapportionment case of Baker v. Carr (1962): 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 [b]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/0,,id=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.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a115/papajohns/poster/humiliation.jpg

http://downthestreetcafe.com/aggies/humiliation.jpg

-Quinn

[White_Male_Canada]

Queen aka VillagIdiot still bitchin`, moanin` and complainin` that she doesn`t know shit from shinola !?


… 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 you, embarrassing you, is easier than a two dollar Bangkok whore.

[Quinn]

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.

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 (1958). That principle was reasserted by the Court in the reapportionment case of Baker v. Carr (1962): 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 [b]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/0,,id=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.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a115/papajohns/poster/humiliation.jpg

http://downthestreetcafe.com/aggies/humiliation.jpg

-Quinn

[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:

Limited !? It`s limited because it`s not illegal. Ah yes polls this and polls that. The option then become higher taxes on corporations combined with more laws requiring companies to file as C-corps and more protectionsist nonsense.

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/stocks/stock-market-news/news697278.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. :lol:

[White_Male_Canada]

It get`s even worse for queen, aka the VillageIdiot.

Before the USSC decision that found McCain/Feingold unconstitutional this fool stated with authority:


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...

Buh-waa-ha-haa!

It get`s worse ! This moron then has this to say about McCain:


He’s the odds on favorite to be the next president.

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.

[Quinn]

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.

He had the highest approval rating of any potential presidential candidate at the time, hence the "odds on favorite" at the time, which was a long time before this phase of the campaign.

-Quinn

[Quinn]

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.

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 (1958). That principle was reasserted by the Court in the reapportionment case of Baker v. Carr (1962): 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 [b]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/0,,id=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.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a115/papajohns/poster/humiliation.jpg

http://downthestreetcafe.com/aggies/humiliation.jpg

-Quinn


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.

[White_Male_Canada]

LOL :lol: All we can hear is the 'beep-beep' sound of a commercial vehicle backing up :lol:


He’s the odds on favorite to be the next president.



He had the highest approval rating of any potential presidential candidate at the time, hence the "odds on favorite" at the time, which was a long time before this phase of the campaign.

:lol:

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/stocks/stock-market-news/news697278.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.

Now the "Fiesta Resistance".

This ignoramous takes a shellacing and learns a lesson in regards to the USSC, how it is the end point of litigation and how Article III applies, making Congress the ultimate authority. The point flies so far over this Village Idiots head it still doesn`t get it ! To top it off this useless self embarrassing retard then continues on in it`s complete ignorant bliss and states with complete sincerity:


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...


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

Keep spamming and hi-jacking asshole, you may get your wish and be banned yet ! :lol:

quinn:


Like I said previously, I'm going to push this until we eventually both get banned by the mods. – at which point the P&R forum can hold the type of debates HA used to have regularly :lol:

[Quinn]

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 (1958). That principle was reasserted by the Court in the reapportionment case of Baker v. Carr (1962): 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 [b]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/0,,id=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.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a115/papajohns/poster/humiliation.jpg

http://downthestreetcafe.com/aggies/humiliation.jpg

-Quinn

[White_Male_Canada]

What a dork, queen took the bait LOL :

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=22494





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/stocks/stock-market-news/news697278.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. :lol:

[Quinn]

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 (1958). That principle was reasserted by the Court in the reapportionment case of Baker v. Carr (1962): 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 [b]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/0,,id=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.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a115/papajohns/poster/humiliation.jpg

http://downthestreetcafe.com/aggies/humiliation.jpg

-Quinn

[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/stocks/stock-market-news/news697278.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. :lol:

[Quinn]

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 (1958). That principle was reasserted by the Court in the reapportionment case of Baker v. Carr (1962): 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 [b]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/0,,id=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.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a115/papajohns/poster/humiliation.jpg

http://downthestreetcafe.com/aggies/humiliation.jpg

-Quinn

[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/stocks/stock-market-news/news697278.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. :lol:

[Quinn]

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 (1958). That principle was reasserted by the Court in the reapportionment case of Baker v. Carr (1962): 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 [b]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/0,,id=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.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a115/papajohns/poster/humiliation.jpg

http://downthestreetcafe.com/aggies/humiliation.jpg

-Quinn

[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/stocks/stock-market-news/news697278.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. :lol:

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 (1958). That principle was reasserted by the Court in the reapportionment case of Baker v. Carr (1962): 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 [b]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/0,,id=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.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a115/papajohns/poster/humiliation.jpg

http://downthestreetcafe.com/aggies/humiliation.jpg

-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.
:lol:

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/stocks/stock-market-news/news697278.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. :lol:

[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. 8)